McIntire v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER Accepting 16 Report and Recommendation without modification. Pursuant to Judge Strand's recommendation, the Commissioner's determination that McIntire was not disabled is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Judgment shall enter against the Commissioner and in favor of McIntire. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 08/31/2015. (src)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
MAE M. MCINTIRE,
No. C 14-3027-MWB
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND
In this case, plaintiff Mae M. McIntire seeks judicial review of a final decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Social Security
Disability benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income benefits (SSI) under Titles
II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. This case is before me
on United States Magistrate Judge Leonard T. Strand’s June 25, 2015, Report And
Recommendation (docket no. 16), recommending that the Commissioner’s determination
that McIntire was not disabled be reversed and remanded for further proceedings and that
judgment be entered against the Commissioner and in favor of McIntire. No party filed
any timely objections to the Report And Recommendation.
The applicable statute provides for de novo review by the district judge of a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, when objections are made.
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) (stating identical
requirements); N.D. IA. L.R. 72, 72.1 (allowing the referral of dispositive matters to a
magistrate judge but not articulating any standards to review the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation). On the other hand, in the absence of an objection, the district
court is not required “to give any more consideration to the magistrate’s report than the
court considers appropriate.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also Peretz
v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (1991) (stating that § 636(b)(1) “provide[s] for de
novo review only when a party objected to the magistrate’s findings or recommendations”
(emphasis added)); United States v. Ewing, 632 F.3d 412, 415 (8th Cir. 2011) (“By
failing to file objections, Ewing waived his right to de novo review [of a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation on a suppression motion] by the district court.”).
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has indicated, however, that, at a minimum, a
district court should review the portions of a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation to which no objections have been made under a “clearly erroneous”
standard of review. See Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting
that, when no objections are filed and the time for filing objections has expired, “[the
district court judge] would only have to review the findings of the magistrate judge for
clear error”); Taylor v. Farrier, 910 F.2d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting that the
advisory committee’s note to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) indicates “when no timely objection
is filed the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
Here, in the absence of any objections, I have reviewed Judge Strand’s Report
And Recommendation for clear error. I find no such no clear error in Judge Strand’s
Report And Recommendation, in light of the record.
THEREFORE, I accept Judge Strand’s June 25, 2015, Report And
Recommendation (docket no. 16), without modification. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).
Pursuant to his recommendation, the Commissioner’s determination that McIntire was
not disabled is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Judgment shall enter against the Commissioner and in favor of McIntire.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 31st day of August, 2015.
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
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?