Wallace v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 18

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting in part 10 Motion to Reverse Decision of Commissioner, denying 15 Motion for Order Affirming Decision of Commissioner and remanding the matter for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 2/13/2012. (pam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

2012 FEB 13 AM 9: l+lt
CLERK

::et:\

DEPUTY CLERK

ANNA WALLACE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)

)

Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL 1. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

Case No.5: ll-cv-26

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

(Docs. 10, 15, & 17)

This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's January
10,2012 Report and Recommendation ("R & R") in the above-captioned matter (Doc.
17). Neither party has objected to the R & R, and the deadline for doing so has expired.
In this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff Anna Wallace seeks review
of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying
her application for disability insurance benefits. In the R & R, the Magistrate Judge
recommends granting in part Ms. Wallace's motion to reverse the Commissioner's
decision (Doc. 10) and denying the Commissioner's motion to affirm the same (Doc. 15).
He further recommends that the matter be remanded for further proceedings and a new
decision in accordance with the R & R.
A district judge must make a de novo determination of those portions of a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which an objection is made. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401,405 (2d Cir.
1999). The district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(1); accord

Cullen, 194 F.3d at 405. A district judge, however, is not required to review the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of a report and
recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150 (1985). When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there
is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. See
Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196,206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied,
419 U.S. 879 (1974).
In his twenty-two page R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual
record, the competing motions, the applicable law, and the ALJ's decision. The court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions and hereby ADOPTS the R & R as the
Opinion and Order of this court.
For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby GRANTS IN PART Ms. Wallace's
motion to reverse (Doc. 10), DENIES the Commissioner's motion for an order affirming
the ALl's decision (Doc. 15) and REMANDS this case for proceedings consistent with
this Opinion and Order.
SO ORDERED.
".,...

Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this /3 day of February, 2012.

ristina Reiss, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2