Richardson v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER Accepting 19 Report and Recommendations re 3 Complaint filed by Tami L Richardson: The Report and Recommendation is adopted and the final decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Linda R Reade on 5/19/2017. (skm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION
TAMI L. RICHARDSON,
NANCY K. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
The matter before the court is United States Chief Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams’s
Report and Recommendation (docket no. 19).
The Report and Recommendation
recommends that the court affirm the final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Tami L. Richardson’s application for Title
II disability insurance benefits.
On July 6, 2016, Richardson filed a Complaint (docket no. 3), requesting judicial
review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny her application for disability insurance
benefits. On November 16, 2016, the Commissioner filed an Answer (docket no. 8). The
matter was briefed and referred to Judge Williams on March 21, 2017 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). On April 27, 2017, Judge Williams
issued the Report and Recommendation. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge
Williams advised the parties that they “must file objections to [the] Report and
Recommendation within fourteen . . . days of the service of a copy of [the] Report and
Recommendation.” Report and Recommendation at 25. 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
In this case, no objections have been filed, and it appears to the court upon review
of Judge Williams’s findings and conclusions that there is no ground to reject or modify
them. Therefore, the court ACCEPTS Judge Williams’s Report and Recommendation of
April 27, 2017.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (docket no. 19) is
ADOPTED and the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The Complaint
(docket no. 3) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 19th day of May, 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?