Delgado v. Bowen, No. 85-1663

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore COFFEY, EASTERBROOK and RIPPLE; PER CURIAM
Citation782 F.2d 79
Parties, Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 16,573 Josefa DELGADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 85-1663
Decision Date29 October 1985

Page 79

782 F.2d 79
12 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 201, Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 16,573
Josefa DELGADO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 85-1663.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 29, 1985. *
Decided Jan. 15, 1986.

Page 80

Ardwin E. Boyer and Donald A. Shapiro, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.

Margaret Gordon, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Anton Valukas, U.S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee.

Before COFFEY, EASTERBROOK and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to deny plaintiff's application for disability benefits. We affirm.

Page 81

I

On June 18, 1982, plaintiff, Mrs. Josefa Delgado, then sixty years old, applied for disability benefits, alleging that she had been disabled since January 1, 1982. A hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Mrs. Delgado was represented by an attorney as she has been throughout this litigation. The ALJ issued a written decision denying the application on the ground that Mrs. Delgado could still perform her past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520(e). The Appeals Council denied review of that decision, 1 and, therefore, it is the final decision of the Secretary.

Mrs. Delgado next filed suit in federal district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g), seeking review of the Secretary's decision. Subsequently, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the district judge referred the motion to a magistrate. The magistrate, finding a lack of substantial evidence to support the Secretary's determination that Mrs. Delgado could return to her past relevant work, recommended that the case be remanded to the Secretary for a vocational assessment. See 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1566(e). Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the magistrate's recommendation with the district judge, but she objected only to the remand not to the findings of the magistrate. The Secretary filed neither an objection to the magistrate's recommendation nor a response to plaintiff's objection. The district judge reviewed the entire record de novo and found that plaintiff was not disabled. The court chose not to follow the recommendation of the magistrate and instead granted the Secretary's motion for summary judgment thereby affirming the ALJ's decision. Plaintiff filed a timely appeal with this court. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1).

On appeal, plaintiff raises two issues. First, plaintiff argues that the district judge acted improperly by making a de novo determination of the entire case instead of limiting himself to those portions of the magistrate's recommendations to which plaintiff objected. Second, plaintiff argues that the decision of the ALJ was not supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, this court should remand the case to the Secretary. For the reasons given below, we hold that no remand is necessary because the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

II
A

Initially, plaintiff argues that the district judge's de novo determination exceeded the standard set by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(C). Section 636(b)(1)(B) permits a district judge to designate a magistrate to conduct hearings and propose findings of facts and recommendations for the disposition of various motions and petitions including, as in this case, motions for summary judgment. Section 636(b)(1)(C) further provides that:

A Judge of 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. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.

Plaintiff apparently argues that the second sentence of the quoted passage has no effect independent of the first sentence; that is, the district judge can only accept, reject, or modify the objected-to findings or recommendations. Under plaintiff's interpretation of the statute, a district judge must automatically accept the magistrate's proposed

Page 82

disposition if neither party makes an objection. 2

We believe that the plaintiff's interpretation is wrong. Any ambiguity in the statutory language is certainly laid to rest by the legislative history and the case law. The passage under discussion was added to the Federal Magistrates Act by the 1976 amendments to that Act. A sentence similar to the first one was in the bill originally introduced in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
413 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Ford, No. 86-1098
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 11, 1987
    ...34 676 F.2d 343 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1048, 103 S.Ct. 468, 74 L.Ed.2d 617 (1982). 35 Id. at 346-47. 36 Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79, 81-82 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Peacock, 761 F.2d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 847, 106 S.Ct. 139, 88 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985)......
  • Miller v. Vesta, Inc., No. 94-C-1270.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • November 22, 1996
    ...28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 2411-13, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980); Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79, 82 (7th Cir. 1986); Ramirez v. Turner, 991 F.2d 351, 354 (7th Cir.1993). The court may review other portions of the recommendation if appropriate. ......
  • Chinn v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst., Case No. 3:02-cv-512
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • May 29, 2020
    ...Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), this Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations de novo. See, e.g., Delgado v. Brown, 782 F.2d 79, 82 (7th Cir. 1986). Because this is a habeas corpus case, provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") that became ......
  • Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney Llp, No. 07-2220.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • January 15, 2009
    ...of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate."); Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79, 81-82 (7th Cir.1986) (per curiam) ("[Section 636(b)(1)] should be read as permitting modifications and de novo determinations by the district j......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
413 cases
  • U.S. v. Ford, No. 86-1098
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 11, 1987
    ...34 676 F.2d 343 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1048, 103 S.Ct. 468, 74 L.Ed.2d 617 (1982). 35 Id. at 346-47. 36 Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79, 81-82 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Peacock, 761 F.2d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 847, 106 S.Ct. 139, 88 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985)......
  • Miller v. Vesta, Inc., No. 94-C-1270.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • November 22, 1996
    ...28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 2411-13, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980); Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79, 82 (7th Cir. 1986); Ramirez v. Turner, 991 F.2d 351, 354 (7th Cir.1993). The court may review other portions of the recommendation if appropriate. ......
  • Chinn v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst., Case No. 3:02-cv-512
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • May 29, 2020
    ...Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), this Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations de novo. See, e.g., Delgado v. Brown, 782 F.2d 79, 82 (7th Cir. 1986). Because this is a habeas corpus case, provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") that became ......
  • Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney Llp, No. 07-2220.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • January 15, 2009
    ...of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate."); Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79, 81-82 (7th Cir.1986) (per curiam) ("[Section 636(b)(1)] should be read as permitting modifications and de novo determinations by the district j......
  • 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