PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SHARON ROSE HOWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 6:16-cv-271-SB

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and 

Recommendation in this case on March 23, 2017. ECF 13. Judge Beckerman recommended that 

the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. 

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 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). 
PAGE 2 – ORDER

Plaintiff timely filed an objection. ECF 15. Plaintiff argues that the Commissioner erred 

in finding that Plaintiff was not disabled before March 26, 2013 by improperly rejecting medical 

evidence, Plaintiff’s testimony, and lay witness testimony. Plaintiff further argues that her

residual functional capacity is consistent with sedentary work, not light work. The Court has 

reviewed de novo those portions of Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation to which 

Plaintiff has objected, as well as Plaintiff’s objections and Defendant’s response. The Court 

agrees with Judge Beckerman’s reasoning regarding the issues to which Plaintiff objects and 

ADOPTS those portions of the Findings and Recommendation.

For those portions of a magistrate’s findings and recommendations to which neither party 

has objected, 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’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but not 

otherwise”). Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Magistrates 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’s 

recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

For those portions of Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation to which neither 

party has objected, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and 

reviews those matters for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent.
PAGE 3 – ORDER

The Court ADOPTS Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 13. The 

Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 1st day of May, 2017.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge