Marks v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
19
ORDER that Judge Koppe's 18 Report and Recommendation is Accepted and Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Remand is Granted. Defendant's 15 Motion to Affirm is Denied. This case is Remanded to the administrative law judge for further proceedings consistent with this order and with Judge Koppe's report and recommendation. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 2/2/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
***
4
DAVID T. MARKS,
5
6
7
8
Case No. 2:16-cv-03034-APG-NJK
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY.,
ORDER ON REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
(ECF. NOS. 13, 15, 18)
Defendant.
9
10
11
On January 7, 2018, Magistrate Judge Koppe entered a report and recommendation that I
12
remand this case to the administrative law judge. No party filed an objection. Thus, I am not
13
obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
14
(requiring district courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
15
specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
16
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s
17
findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in
18
original)).
19
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation (ECF
20
No. 18) is accepted, the plaintiff’s motion for remand (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED, and the
21
defendant’s motion to affirm (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. This case is REMANDED to the
22
administrative law judge for further proceedings consistent with this order and with Judge
23
Koppe’s report and recommendation.
24
DATED this 2nd day of February, 2018.
25
26
27
28
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?