Reinhardt v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER Adopting 20 Report and Recommendation. The final decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. The 4 Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Linda R Reade on 4/10/2017. (skm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
EASTERN DIVISION
MELISSA REINHARDT,
Plaintiff,

No. 16-CV-1030-LRR

vs.

ORDER

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
____________________
The matter before the court is United States Chief Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams’s
Report and Recommendation (docket no. 20).

The Report and Recommendation

recommends that the court affirm the final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Melissa Reinhardt’s application for Title XVI
disability benefits.
On July 29, 2016, Reinhardt filed a Complaint (docket no. 4) requesting judicial
review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny her application for disability benefits. On
October 3, 2016, the Commissioner filed an Answer (docket no. 9). The matter was
briefed and referred to Judge Williams on February 13, 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. 17); Plaintiff’s Reply Brief (docket no. 18). On March
20, 2017, Judge Williams issued the Report and Recommendation. In the Report and
Recommendation, Judge Williams advised the parties that they “must file objections to this
Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the service of a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b).” Report and Recommendation at 17. 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 any portion of a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation on
dispositive motions to which 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 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 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
(docket no. 20). The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The Complaint
(docket no. 4) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of April, 2017.

2