Opinion
No. 17-CV-3044-LRR
07-09-2018
BEVERLY J. ESTORGA, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER
The matter before the court is United States Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney's Report and Recommendation (docket no. 19). The Report and Recommendation recommends that the court reverse and remand the final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Plaintiff Beverly J. Estorga's application for Title XVI supplemental security income.
On May 24, 2017, Estorga filed a Complaint (docket no. 3) requesting judicial review of the Commissioner's decision to deny his application for supplemental security income. On August 11, 2017, the Commissioner filed an Answer (docket no. 8). The matter was briefed and, on December 22, 2017, was referred to Judge Mahoney for issuance of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). See Plaintiff's Brief (docket no. 13); Defendant's Brief (docket no. 16); Plaintiff's Reply (docket no. 17). On June 22, 2018, Judge Mahoney issued the Report and Recommendation. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Mahoney advised the parties that "[o]bjections to [the] Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days." Report and Recommendation at 31. Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed.
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 Court of Appeals 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's report and recommendation, the party waives the right to de novo review and the court will review the decision for plain error).
In this case, no objections have been filed, and it appears to the court upon review of Judge Mahoney's findings and conclusions that there is no ground to reject or modify them. Therefore, the court ACCEPTS Judge Mahoney's Report and Recommendation of June 22, 2018. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (docket no. 19) is ADOPTED and the final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED. The matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further consideration consistent with the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 9th day of July, 2018.
/s/_________
LINDA R. READE, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA