From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ratliff v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Mar 26, 2014
Case No. 3:12-cv-02326-HU (D. Or. Mar. 26, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 3:12-cv-02326-HU

03-26-2014

DANIEL RATLIFF, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on February 24, 2014. ECF 23. Judge Hubel recommended that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. 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[.]"); United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (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 Hubel's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation (ECF 23). The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Ratliff v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Mar 26, 2014
Case No. 3:12-cv-02326-HU (D. Or. Mar. 26, 2014)
Case details for

Ratliff v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL RATLIFF, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Mar 26, 2014

Citations

Case No. 3:12-cv-02326-HU (D. Or. Mar. 26, 2014)

Citing Cases

Robinson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

Plaintiff's citation to Ratliff v. Colvin, No. 3:12-CV-02326-HU, 2014 WL 1269505, at *2 (D. Or. Mar.…

Hardin v. Colvin

The Court does not address Hardin's challenges to the VE's testimony regarding the small products assembler…