Summary
remanding "so that an ALJ can consider the weight that should be given to [a new doctor's report] and determine whether [the doctor's] opinions, along with the other evidence in the record, establish that Plaintiff is disabled"
Summary of this case from Decker v. ColvinOpinion
Case No. 3:12-cv-00726-JE
05-27-2013
EVERLINE BRISTER, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Merrill Schneider SCHNEIDER KERR LAW OFFICES PO Box 14490 Portland, OR 97293 Attorney for Plaintiff Adrian L. Brown U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE District of Oregon 1000 S.W. Third Ave., Ste. 600 Portland, OR 97204 Daphne Banay SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 701 Fifth Avenue Suite #2900 M/S 901 Seattle, WA 98104-7075 Attorneys for Defendants
ORDER Merrill Schneider
SCHNEIDER KERR LAW OFFICES
PO Box 14490
Portland, OR 97293
Attorney for Plaintiff Adrian L. Brown
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
District of Oregon
1000 S.W. Third Ave., Ste. 600
Portland, OR 97204 Daphne Banay
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
701 Fifth Avenue
Suite #2900 M/S 901
Seattle, WA 98104-7075
Attorneys for Defendants HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued a Findings and Recommendation (#17) on May 2, 2013, recommending that the final decision by the Social Security Commissioner (the "Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income be reversed and that this case be remanded for further proceedings. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation (#17). Accordingly, the Commissioner's final decision is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 27 day of May, 2013.
/s/_________
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge