Hickman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON TIFFANY H1, Case No. 3:24-cv-36-HL Plaintiff, ORDER v. MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Hallman issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on December 16, 2024. Judge Hallman recommended that this Court reverse the decision of the administrative law judge and remand this case 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 objects to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, “the court In the interest of privacy, this Order uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party in this case. 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 judge’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 Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

No party having made objections, the Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Hallman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.

The Court ADOPTS Judge Hallman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 19. The Court reverses the Commissioner’s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled and REMANDS for further proceedings consistent with the Findings and Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 31st day of December, 2024. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge