Opinion
No. 18-CV-121-CJW-MAR
07-29-2019
ROBERT A. DANIEL, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Roberts' Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 18). The Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court grant Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Remand. (Doc. 17).
On November 26, 2018, Robert A. Daniel ("Claimant") filed a Complaint requesting judicial review of the Commissioner's decision to deny his application for social security benefits. (Doc. 4). On March 22, 2019, the Commissioner filed an Answer. (Doc. 10). On June 4, 2019, the Commissioner filed the instant motion to remand pursuant to Sentence Four of Section 205(g), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to allow the Commissioner to evaluate claimant's "Lucia challenge" having to do with the constitutionality of the ALJ's appointment. (Doc. 17-1, at 1-2).
Pursuant to statute, this Court's standard of review for a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is as follows:
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 judge.28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides for de novo review of a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation on dispositive motions when objections are made. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). The Eighth Circuit has held that it is reversible error for a district court to fail to conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation when such review is required. See, e.g., United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003). The court reviews the unobjected to portions of the proposed findings or recommendations for "plain error." See United States v. Rodriguez, 484 F.3d 1006, 1010-11 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that, where a party does not file objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the party waives the right to de novo review and the court will review the decision for plain error).
Here, the Commissioner's motion to reverse and remand is unopposed. Therefore, the court ADOPTS Judge Roberts' Report and Recommendation of July 11, 2019. (Doc. 18). The ALJ's decision is reversed and the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of July, 2019.
/s/_________
C.J. Williams
United States District Judge
Northern District of Iowa