Martin-Quigley v. Berryhill

Filing 22

ORDER that the 21 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. A.Q.'s 15 Motion for Reversal and Remand is GRANTED IN PART. The matter is remanded for the ALJ to properly evaluate the opinions of Dr. Weber, Dr. Minuskin, and Dr. Hall and to obtain new relevant evidence to determine whether A.Q. has been disabled since 3/22/2011. The Commissioners 17 Cross-Motion to Affirm is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 4/16/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10

CHRISALYN MARTIN-QUIGLEY,

11
12
13
14

Case No. 2:17-cv-01464-RFB-VCF

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) of the
Honorable Cam Ferenbach, United States Magistrate Judge, entered February 1, 2018.

18

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

19

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific

20

written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §

21

636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is

22

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

23

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local

24

Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct

25

“any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge.

26

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due

27

by February 15, 2018. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this

28

case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.

1
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that A.Q.’s Motion for Reversal and Remand (ECF No.

4

15) is GRANTED IN PART. The matter is remanded for the ALJ to properly evaluate the opinions

5

of Dr. Weber, Dr. Minuskin, and Dr. Hall and to obtain new relevant evidence to determine

6

whether A.Q. has been disabled since March 22, 2011.

7
8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Cross-Motion to Affirm (ECF
No. 17) is DENIED.

9
10

DATED: April 16, 2018.
_____________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-