Cavanaugh-Stevenson v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendation that the District Court reverse the Commissioner's determination that claimant was not disabled re 3 Complaint filed by Ryan A Cavanaugh-Stevenson. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Linda R Reade on 09/28/2017. (jjh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
RYAN A. CAVANAUGHSTEVENSON,
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. 15).
The Report and Recommendation
recommends that the court reverse and remand the final decision of Defendant
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Ryan CavanaughStevenson’s (“Cavanaugh”) application for Title XVI supplemental security income.
On December 15, 2016, Cavanaugh filed a Complaint (docket no. 3), requesting
judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny his application for supplemental
security income. On February 21, 2017, the Commissioner filed an Answer (docket no.
8). The matter was briefed and referred to Judge Williams on July 6, 2017, 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). On September 8, 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 13. 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
September 8, 2017. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (docket no. 15) 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 28th day of September, 2017.
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?