Opinion
Case No. CV 10-6385-ST
02-03-2012
MARK NELSON, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Drew L. Johnson Kathryn Tassinari Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning PC Attorneys for Plaintiff Amanda Marshall United States Attorney District of Oregon Adrian L. Brown Assistant United States Attorney Mathew W. Pile Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel Attorneys for Defendant
OPINION AND ORDER
Drew L. Johnson
Kathryn Tassinari
Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning PC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Amanda Marshall
United States Attorney
District of Oregon
Adrian L. Brown
Assistant United States Attorney
Mathew W. Pile
Social Security Administration
Office of the General Counsel
Attorneys for Defendant
SIMON, Judge:
On January 4, 2012, Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart filed Findings and Recommendations in this case (doc. # 16). Judge Stewart recommended that the application for fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) be granted in the amount of $1,527.61 and that costs be awarded in the amount of $368.96. No objections have been filed.
Under the Federal Magistrates 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, however, no objections are filed, the Magistrates Act does not prescribe any standard of review. In such cases, "[f]here is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Magistrates Act] intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate's report[.]" Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court must review de novo magistrate's findings and recommendations if objection is made, "but not otherwise").
Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Magistrates 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 Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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 objections having been made, the court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Magistrate Judge Stewart's findings and recommendations for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.
Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation (docket # 16). Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys Pursuant to the EAJA (doc. # 13) is GRANTED in the reduced sum of $1,527.61. Plaintiff is awarded costs in the amount of $368.96.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge