Opinion
1:20 CV 1461
07-13-2021
ODALIZ ORTEGA, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DONALD C. NUGENT United States District Judge
l nis matter comes oeiore tne uourt upon tne Keport ana Kecommenaation or Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke. (ECF #20) Plaintiff challenges the final decision of Defendant Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). Magistrate Judge Burke found that the Administrative Law Judge erred because she failed to properly evaluate Plaintiffs right shoulder impairment and whether a cane is medically necessary. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Burke recommends that the Commissioner's final decision be reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. (ECF #19) Following the issuance of the Report and Recommendation, the Commissioner filed a Response stating that he would not be filing objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF #21)
Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation The applicable standard of review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation depends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections are made to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court reviews the case de novo. FED R. Civ. P. 72(b) states:
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
The text of Rule 72(b)(3) addresses only the review of portions of reports to which timely objections have been made; it does not indicate the appropriate standard of review for portions of the report to which no objections have properly been made. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules commented on the standard of review stating, "when 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." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's notes (citations omitted).
The U.S. Supreme Court stated: "It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of magistrate judge's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to these findings." Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Here, no objection was filed by either party. Accordingly, this Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for a finding of clear error on the face of the record.
Conclusion
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the findings set forth therein. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Burke (ECF #20) is ADOPTED. The final decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiffs applications for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.