From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Oct 8, 2014
Case No. 3:13-cv-01457-ST (D. Or. Oct. 8, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 3:13-cv-01457-ST

10-08-2014

CHERYL L. KING, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER

United States Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation in this case on September 18, 2014. Dkt. 18. Judge Stewart recommended that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and remanded 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)(C). 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, however, 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."). Nor does the Act "preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. And 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."

As no party has made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 18. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings not inconsistent with Judge Stewart's opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 8th day of October, 2014.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge


Summaries of

King v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Oct 8, 2014
Case No. 3:13-cv-01457-ST (D. Or. Oct. 8, 2014)
Case details for

King v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:CHERYL L. KING, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Oct 8, 2014

Citations

Case No. 3:13-cv-01457-ST (D. Or. Oct. 8, 2014)

Citing Cases

Kimble v. Berryhill

However, had the ALJ included Dr. Nicoloff's "1-2 step task" limitation in the RFC, it would have restricted…

Dschaak v. Colvin

Several recent cases from this court have held that a limitation to one to two step instructions is a more…