Shuttleworth v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER Accepting Report and Recommendation: The 16 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 4/4/2018. (skm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION
BARBARA A. SHUTTLEWORTH,
NANCY A. 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. 16).
The Report and Recommendation
recommends that the court reverse and remand the final decision of Defendant
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Barbara A.
Shuttleworth’s application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI
supplemental security income.
On April 13, 2017, Shuttleworth filed a Complaint (docket no. 3) requesting judicial
review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny her application for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income. On June 22, 2017, the Commissioner filed an
Answer (docket no. 8). The matter was briefed and, on November 2, 2017, was referred
to Judge Williams for issuance of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). See Plaintiff’s Brief (docket no. 12); Defendant’s Brief (docket no. 13);
Plaintiff’s Reply (docket no. 15). On November 15, 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 14.
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
November 15, 2017. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (docket no. 16) 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 4th day of April, 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?