Fuller v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 15 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION
JONATHAN FULLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CAUSE NO. EP-23-CV-417-KC-MAT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On this day, the Court considered the case. Pursuant to Paragraph 2(c) of the Court’s
May 1, 2012, Standing Order, this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Miguel A.
Torres. On February 18, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), ECF No. 15, which recommended that the Court vacate the decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim
for disability insurance benefits and remand the case for further proceedings. Id. at 1, 18.
Parties have fourteen days from service of a Report and Recommendation of a United
States Magistrate Judge to file written objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).1 Over fourteen
days have elapsed since all parties were served with the R&R, and no objections have been filed.
When parties do not file written objections, courts apply a “clearly erroneous, abuse of
discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to a report and recommendation. United
States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (stating this standard of review “is
appropriate only where there has been no objection to the magistrate’s ruling”); Rodriguez v.
1

Federal district courts conduct de novo review of those portions of a report and recommendation to
which a party has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge . . . shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made . . . .”).

Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th Cir. 1988) (“[A] party is not entitled to de novo review of a
magistrate’s finding and recommendations if objections are not raised in writing by the
aggrieved party . . . after being served with a copy of the magistrate’s report.”), superseded by
statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After reviewing the R&R, the Court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and finds they are
neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 15, in its entirety and ORDERS
that the Commissioner’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 7th day of March, 2025.

KATHLEEN CARDONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2