Simpson v. Colvin
ORDER that Magistrate Judge Foley's 28 Report and Recommendation is Accepted. Defendant's 25 Motion to Affirm is Denied. Plaintiff's 15 Motion to Remand to Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Foley's report and recommendation is Granted. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 1/5/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MARGARET LOUISE SIMPSON,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Case No. 2:16-CV-01074-APG-GWF
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
MOTION TO AFFIRM, AND
GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND
(ECF Nos. 15, 25, 28)
On December 12, 2017, Magistrate Judge Foley entered a report and recommendation
recommending that plaintiff Margaret Louise Simpson’s motion to remand to the Social Security
Administration be granted and that the defendant’s motion to affirm be denied. ECF No. 28.
No one filed an objection. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the
report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is
made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the
district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if
objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Foley’s report and
recommendation (ECF No. 28) is accepted, defendant’s motion to affirm (ECF No. 25) is
DENIED, plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED, and this matter is
remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with
Magistrate Judge Foley’s report and recommendation.
DATED this 5th day of January, 2018.
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?