Vangemert v. Berryhill

Filing 25

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Remand ; ORDER denying 22 Motion to Remand ; ORDER adopting 24 Report and Recommendation; Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/25/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

CHRISTOPHER VANGEMERT,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:18-CV-657 JCM (NJK)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe’s report and

14

recommendation (ECF No. 24) in the matter of Vangemert v. Berryhill, case number 2:18-cv-

15

00657-JCM-NJK. No objections have been filed, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

16

Magistrate Judge Koppe notes that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) improperly

17

denied appellant Christopher Vangemert’s application for disability benefits. (ECF No. 24). The

18

magistrate judge explains in her report and recommendation that experts opined that Vangemert

19

could carry out two-step instructions. Id. The ALJ rejected these opinions and adopted a

20

“simple, repetitive tasks” residual functional capacity limitation. Id. Because the ALJ did not

21

provide any explanation or refer to substantial evidence in support of this rejection, the

22

magistrate judge recommends remanding this case for further proceedings. Id.

23

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

24

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects

25

to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo

26

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

27

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at

2

all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

3

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

4

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United

5

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review

6

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

7

objections were made).

8

Nevertheless, this court conducted a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the

9

recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying

10

briefs, this court finds good cause appears to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings in full.

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Magistrate Judge

13

Koppe’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 24) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its

14

entirety.

15
16
17
18
19
20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Vangemert’s motion to remand (ECF No. 15) be, and
the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the social security commissioner’s motion to affirm the
agency decision (ECF No. 22) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter of Vangemert v. Berryhill, case number
2:18-cv-00657-JCM-NJK be, and the same hereby is, REMANDED.

21

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

22

DATED June 25, 2019.

23
24

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-