Zaste v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON RAYMOND ROY Z.,1 Case No. 3:19-cv-1191-JR Plaintiff, ORDER v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Michael H. Simon, District Judge. United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on February 24, 2022. Judge Russo recommended that this Court reverse the decision of the Commissioner 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 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). 1 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. Where applicable, this opinion uses the same designation for a non-governmental party’s immediate family member 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 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, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 57. The Court REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDS this case for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 16th day of March, 2022. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge