Opinion
CV-21-00484-TUC-RM
03-13-2023
Gina Veronica Moreno, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER
HONORABLE ROSEMARY MÁRQUEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On February 22, 2023, Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) recommending that this Court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration and remand to the agency for the calculation and award of benefits. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.
A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a magistrate judge's “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee's notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Markovich's Report and Recommendation, the parties' briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Markovich's Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is accepted and adopted in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed, and this case is remanded to the agency for the calculation and award of benefits to Plaintiff Gina Veronica Moreno. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Remand (Doc. 25) is denied as moot.