Opinion
Civil Action No. SA: 04-CA-456-XR.
June 10, 2005
ORDER
On this date the Court considered Plaintiff's appeal of an adverse disability determination by the Social Security Administration and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff has filed no objection. After careful consideration of the record, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and REMANDS the case to allow the administrative law judge (ALJ) to assess Plaintiff's credibility in compliance with the applicable legal standards.
I. Background
Claimant filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income Benefits on March 15, 2001, alleging disability beginning April 1998. Plaintiff was initially denied benefits on April 12, 2001, and was denied on reconsideration July 30, 2001. Additionally, a hearing was held on March 5, 2002. On May 28, 2002, ALJ ruled that Plaintiff was not disabled. Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Appeals Council on June 19, 2002. Plaintiff's Request for Review was denied on April 23, 2004. Subsequently, Plaintiff brought this action before this Court.
Plaintiff's Original Complaint alleged that (1) the decision of the ALJ was not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) the ALJ failed to apply the proper legal standards to Plaintiff's claim. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for review. On April 25, 2005, United States Magistrate Judge Nancy Nowak filed a Report and Recommendation finding reversible error in the ALJ's improper assessment of Plaintiff's credibility. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the case be remanded so that the ALJ can properly assess the Plaintiff's credibility in accordance with the proper legal standards. No objection has been filed to the Report and Recommendation by either party.
II. Analysis
When no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findingds and recommendations to which objection is made"). In such cases, the Court need only review the Report and Recommendation and determine whether it is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
In this case, no party has objected to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ did not follow Social Security Ruling 96-7p in assessing Plaintiff's credibility and failed to perform the step-by-step analysis required by the regulation. Thus the Magistrate Judge recommends that the case be remanded to allow the ALJ to examine the Plaintiff in accordance with the proper legal standards. The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and finds no clear error.