Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

HENRIETTA WERTHY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL SIMON, District Judge

On September 2, 2011, Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel issued findings and recommendations (#21) in the above-captioned case. Judge Hubel recommended that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and the case be remanded for further proceedings consistent with his findings and recommendations. Neither party has filed objections.

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." Federal Magistrates Act, 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, "[t]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. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985); see also United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) ( en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003) (the 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 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 Magistrate Judge Hubel's findings and recommendations (#21) for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Therefore the court orders that Judge Hubel's findings and recommendations (#21) is ADOPTED.

Dated this 30th day of September, 2011

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WERTHY v. ASTRUE
(Oct 3, 2011)