Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_14-cv-01462/USCOURTS-alnd-5_14-cv-01462-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

JOY A. GAMBLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 5:14-cv-01462-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 6, 2015, Chief Magistrate Judge John Ott entered a report in which 

he recommended that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny Ms. 

Gamble’s application for supplemental security income benefits. (Doc. 15). Chief 

Magistrate Judge Ott notified the parties that they could file objections to the 

recommendation within 14 days of the filing date of his report. (Doc.15, p. 15). 

No party has filed objections. 

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings 

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

When a party makes timely objections to a Report and Recommendation, the 

district court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report or 

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.

FILED

 2015 May-28 AM 09:01

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:14-cv-01462-MHH Document 18 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 3
2

When no objections are filed, the district court need not conduct a de novo 

review. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 

United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), cert. 

denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984) (“The failure to object to the magistrate’s findings 

of fact prohibits an attack on appeal of the factual findings adopted by the district 

court except on grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.”) (internal citation 

omitted). In Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006), the 

Eleventh Circuit stated:

Most circuits agree that “[i]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a 

district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must 

only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 

in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & 

Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted); 

accord Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.1999) 

(“If no objection or only partial objection is made [to the magistrate 

judge’s report], the district court judge reviews those unobjected 

portions for clear error.”); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 

1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (noting that the “clearly erroneous” standard is 

appropriate where there has been no objection to the magistrate 

judge’s ruling); Drywall Tapers & Pointers v. Local 530, 889 F.2d 

389, 395 (2d Cir. 1989) (“Where a magistrate [judge] has been 

appointed to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the district court reviews 

the Report and Recommendation under the same clearly erroneous 

standard.”) (citing Wooldridge v. Marlene Indus. Corp., 875 F.2d 540, 

544 (6th Cir. 1989)).

Id. To date, the Eleventh Circuit does not appear to have expressly held that, in the 

absence of objections, a district court should review a report and recommendation 

for clear error; however, the Court assumes from the discussion in Macort that the 

Case 5:14-cv-01462-MHH Document 18 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Eleventh Circuit would adopt such a standard if the Court were to address the issue 

directly. See generally Shuler v. Infinity Property & Gas, 2013 WL 1346615, at *1 

(N.D. Ala. Mar. 29, 2013) (portions of a report and recommendation “to which no

objection is filed are reviewed only for clear error.”). 

The Court has carefully reviewed the record and Magistrate Judge Ott’s 

report and recommendation. (Doc. 15). Applying the clearly erroneous standard, 

the Court ADOPTS his report and ACCEPTS his recommendation that the Court 

affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny Ms. Gamble’s application for benefits. 

The Court will enter a separate final judgment consistent with this memorandum 

opinion.

DONE and ORDERED this May 28, 2015.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:14-cv-01462-MHH Document 18 Filed 05/28/15 Page 3 of 3