Mess v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER Adopting 17 Report and Recommendations affirming the final decision of the Commissioner. The 4 Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Linda R Reade on 6/14/2016. (skm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
EASTERN DIVISION

THOMAS MESS,
Plaintiff,

No. 15-CV-1013-LRR

vs.

ORDER

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.
____________________
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The matter before the court is United States Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams’s
Report and Recommendation (docket no. 17).

The Report and Recommendation

recommends that the court affirm the final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of
Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Thomas Mess’s application for Title
II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits.
On April 30, 2015, Mess filed a Complaint (docket no. 4), requesting judicial
review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny his application for social security benefits.
On June 29, 2015, the Commissioner filed an Answer (docket no. 9). On February 19,
2016, the matter was referred to Judge Williams for issuance of a report and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) after being briefed by the parties.1
See Plaintiff’s Brief (docket no. 12); Defendant’s Brief (docket no. 14). On May 16,
2016, Judge Williams issued the Report and Recommendation.

In the Report and

Recommendation, Judge Williams advised the parties that “[o]bjections to th[e] Report and

1

This matter was initially referred to United States District Court Judge Leonard
T. Strand for issuance of a Report and Recommendation on September 1, 2015. However,
the case was subsequently transferred to Judge Williams.

Recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) must
be filed within fourteen (14) days of the service of a copy of th[e] Report and
Recommendation.” Report and Recommendation at 24. Neither party has filed objections
to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. The court,
therefore, undertakes the necessary review of Judge Williams’s recommendation to affirm
the Commissioner’s decision.
II. ANALYSIS
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 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 unobjectedto 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 Williams’s findings and conclusions that there is no ground to reject or modify
them. Therefore, the court ADOPTS Judge Williams’s Report and Recommendation of

2

May 16, 2016 and AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner. The Complaint
(docket no. 4) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 14th day of June, 2016.

3