From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Milton v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Apr 13, 2018
Case No. 6:16-cv-1902-YY (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 6:16-cv-1902-YY

04-13-2018

NICOLE M. MILTON, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on March 26, 2018. ECF 21. Judge You recommended that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. No party has filed objections.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act ("Act"), the court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate's findings and recommendations, "the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) ("There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate's report to which no objections are filed."); United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the court must review de novo magistrate's findings and recommendations if objection is made, "but not otherwise").

Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act "does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that "[w]hen no timely objection is filed," the court review the magistrate's findings and recommendations for "clear error on the face of the record."

No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge You's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge You's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 21. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with Judge You's Findings & Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this ___th day of __________, 2018.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Milton v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Apr 13, 2018
Case No. 6:16-cv-1902-YY (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2018)
Case details for

Milton v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:NICOLE M. MILTON, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Apr 13, 2018

Citations

Case No. 6:16-cv-1902-YY (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2018)

Citing Cases

Katie E. B. v. Kijakazi

The Court cannot conclude that two instances of sitting down for a longer period under medication call…