Morrison v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER Accepting 18 Report and Recommendations: The 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 11/20/2017. (skm)

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

ANGELA S. MORRISON,
Plaintiff,

No. 17-CV-2007-LRR

vs.

ORDER

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
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. 18).

The Report and Recommendation

recommends that the court reverse and remand the final decision of Defendant
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Angela S.
Morrison’s application for Title II disability insurance benefits.
On February 28, 2017, Morrison filed a Complaint (docket no. 3), requesting
judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny her application for disability
insurance benefits. On April 26, 2017, the Commissioner filed an Answer (docket no. 9).
The matter was briefed and referred to Judge Williams on September 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. 14); Defendant’s Brief (docket no. 15); Reply (docket no. 17). On
October 17, 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
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 ACCEPTS Judge Williams’s Report and Recommendation of
October 17, 2017. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (docket no. 18) 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

DATED this 20th day of November, 2017.

3