Maysonet-Rondon v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER re 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT, filed by Hector Maysonet-Rondon. Having conducted independent review of the record and no objections being filed, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. A ccordingly, the Commissioner decision is set aside, for it not being supported by substantial evidence on the record. The Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Aida M. Delgado-Colon on 11/10/2009.(wm) Modified on 11/16/2009 to correct document type (rc).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO HECTOR MAYSONET-RONDON, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER A. Procedural History Plaintiff Héctor Maysonet-Rondón ("Rondón") sought judicial review of the final decision of the defendant the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying the application for entitlement to a period of disability and benefits. Magistrate Judge Camille Vélez-Rivé issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on October 1, 2009 to which objections, if any, were to be filed by October 19, 2009. To date, no objections have been filed. B. Standard of Review A district court may refer pending motions to a magistrate-judge for a report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L. Civ. R. 72(a). Any party adversely affected by the recommendation issued may file written objections within ten (10) days of being served with the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party that files a timely objection is entitled to a de novo determination of "those portions of the report or Civil No. 09-1338 (ADC)

Criminal No. 09-1338 (ADC)

P a g e -2-

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which specific objection is made." Sylva v. Culebra Dive Shop, 389 F. Supp. 2d 189, 191-92 (D.P.R. 2005) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980)). Failure to comply with this rule may preclude further review by the district court and the court of appeals. See Santiago v. Cannon U.S.A. Inc., 138 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1998); Davet v. Maccorone, 973 F.2d 22, 30-31 (1st Cir. 1992). Similarly, a party objecting to a report and recommendation is "not entitled to a de novo review of an argument never raised" before the magistrate-judge. Borden v. Sec. of Health and Human Svcs., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1987). In conducting its review, the Court is free to "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate-judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636 (a)(b)(1); see also Templeman v. Cris Craft Corp., 770 F.2d 245, 247 (1st Cir. 1985); Alamo- Rodríguez v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 286 F. Supp. 2d 144, 146 (D.P.R. 2003). Hence, the Court may accept those parts of the report and recommendation to which the plaintiff does not object. See HernándezMejías v. General Elec., 428 F. Supp. 2d 4, 6 (D.P.R. 2005) (citing Lacedra v. Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility, 334 F. Supp. 2d 114, 125-26 (D.R.I. 2004)). C. Conclusion Having conducted independent review of the record and no objections being filed, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Commissioner decision is set aside, for it not being supported by substantial evidence on the record.

Criminal No. 09-1338 (ADC)

P a g e -2-

The Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly. SO ORDERED. At San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 10th day of November, 2009.

S/AIDA M. DELGADO-COLON United States District Judge