Running v. Commissioner Social Security Administration ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON JEFFREY M. R., Case No. 3:20-cv-88-AR Plaintiff, ORDER v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Michael H. Simon, District Judge. United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Armistead issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on January 17, 2023. Judge Armistead recommended that this Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and enter the order in the form submitted by Plaintiff. 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). 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 Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 34. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, ECF 28, and shall, concurrently herewith, enter the order in the form proposed by Plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 28th day of March, 2023. /s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge