Briggs v. Saul
ORDER Adopting 48 Report and Recommendation and Granting Plaintiff's 42 Motion to Remand and Denying 43 Countermotion to Affirm the Agency Decision. This matter is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 1/6/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
Case 2:19-cv-01094-APG-NJK Document 49 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 SHELENE IRENE BRIGGS,
Case No.: 2:19-cv-01094-APG-NJK
Order Accepting Report and
Recommendation and Remanding This
6 ANDREW M. SAUL,
[ECF Nos. 42, 43, 48]
On December 18, 2020, Magistrate Judge Koppe recommended that I grant plaintiff
9 Shelene Briggs’ motion to remand, deny the Commissioner’s motion to affirm, and remand this
10 action to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings. ECF No. 48. No one filed an
11 objection. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and
12 recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo
13 determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is
14 made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the
15 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if
16 objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)).
I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation
18 (ECF No. 48) is accepted, plaintiff Shelene Briggs’ motion to remand (ECF No. 42) is
19 GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s motion to affirm (ECF No. 43) is DENIED. This matter
20 is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The clerk of
21 court is instructed to close this case.
DATED this 6th day of January, 2021.
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?