Heims v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER Accepting 21 Report and Recommendation re 3 Complaint: The Report and Recommendation 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. Signed by Judge Linda R Reade on 3/6/2018. (skm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION
EMILY E. HEIMS,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
The matter before the court is United States Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E.
Mahoney’s Report and Recommendation (docket no. 21).
The Report and
Recommendation recommends that the court reverse and remand the final decision of
Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Emily E.
Heims’s application for child’s insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 402(d) and
supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§
On October 3, 2016, Heims filed a Complaint (docket no. 3), requesting judicial
review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny her application for child’s insurance
benefits and supplemental security income. On December 13, 2016, the Commissioner
filed an Answer (docket no. 8). The matter was briefed and referred to Judge Mahoney
on May 31, 2017, for issuance of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). See Plaintiff’s Brief (docket no. 15); Defendant’s Brief (docket no. 19).
On February 16, 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.”
Recommendation at 29.
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 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
February 16, 2018. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (docket no. 21) 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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of March, 2018.
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?