Chamblee v. Schweiker

Citation518 F. Supp. 519
Decision Date11 June 1981
Docket NumberCiv. No. C80-403A.
PartiesBonnie CHAMBLEE v. Richard SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health & Human Services.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia

William I. Aynes, Aynes & Digby, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.

William L. Harper, U. S. Atty., Kathie G. McClure, Asst. U. S. Atty., Carl H. Harper, Regional Atty., Dept. of Health and Human Services, Jerry J. Wall, Asst. Regional Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.

ORDER

O'KELLEY, District Judge.

This action comes before the court on the magistrate's report and recommendation that the Secretary's decision to deny the plaintiff disability benefits be affirmed. While before the magistrate, the plaintiff took issue with the administrative law judge's decision, but she did not file any objections to the magistrate's report to this court. For this reason, and after a review of his report and the administrative law judge's findings, the court accepts the magistrate's recommendation.

A party who files objections to the magistrate's report is entitled to a de novo determination by this court of the recommendations to which he or she objects. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636; see Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71, 96 S.Ct. 549, 554, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). In the court's judgment, however, when the party is notified of this right to object to the magistrate's report, and of the time limits within which these objections must be filed, and fails to do so, he or she has waived this right to de novo consideration of the issues raised in the case. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); United States v. Lewis, 621 F.2d 1382, 1386 (5th Cir. 1980); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603, 605 (1st Cir. 1980); United States v. Bullock, 590 F.2d 117, 120 (5th Cir. 1979); John B. Hull, Inc. v. Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc., 588 F.2d 24, 31 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 960, 99 S.Ct. 1502, 59 L.Ed.2d 773 (1979); United States v. Barney, 568 F.2d 134, 136 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 955, 98 S.Ct. 1586, 55 L.Ed.2d 806 (1978); Consorcio Constructor Impregilo v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 497 F.Supp. 591, 593 (E.D.Pa.1980). Then use of a standard of review more closely akin to the rule 52 "clearly erroneous" standard is appropriate.

Construing the relationship between the court and the magistrate in this manner is consistent with the purpose of the Act, which authorizes the magistrates to assume some of the burden imposed by a burgeoning caseload. De novo consideration of every case referred to the magistrate in which no objections are filed would be redundant. When a party fails to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Anderson v. Dunbar Armored, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • 18 Agosto 2009
    ...(N.D.Ga.2006) (Story, J.) (citing HGI Assocs., Inc. v. Wetmore Printing Co., 427 F.3d 867, 873 (11th Cir.2005)); Chamblee v. Schweiker, 518 F.Supp. 519, 520 (N.D.Ga.1981) (O'Kelley, J.). Clear error review asks if, "after viewing all the evidence, we are `left with the definite and firm con......
  • Edwards v. Niagara Credit Solutions, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • 13 Noviembre 2008
    ...438 F.Supp.2d at 1373-74 (citing HGI Assocs., Inc. v. Wetmore Printing Co., 427 F.3d 867, 873 (11th Cir.2005)); Chamblee v. Schweiker, 518 F.Supp. 519, 520 (N.D.Ga. 1981) (O'Kelley, J.). Clear error review asks if, "after viewing all the evidence, we are `left with the definite and firm con......
  • Tauber v. Barnhart
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • 31 Marzo 2006
    ...222 F.Supp.2d 1367, 1369 (S.D.Fla.2002); Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1558, 1561-62 (M.D.Fla.1993); Chamblee v. Schweiker, 518 F.Supp. 519, 520 (N.D.Ga.1981) ("[W]hen [a] party is notified of [the] right to object to the magistrate's report ... and fails to do so, he or she h......
  • Paterson-Leitch Co., Inc. v. Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., PATERSON-LEITCH
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 11 Diciembre 1987
    ...important one. They exist "to assume some of the burden imposed [on the district courts] by a burgeoning caseload." Chamblee v. Schweiker, 518 F.Supp. 519, 520 (N.D.Ga.1981). The system is premised on the notion that magistrates will "relieve courts of unnecessary work." Park Motor Mart, In......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT