Bell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 25

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; granting 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Order Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner; denying Defendant's 12 Motion for Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further proceedings and a new decision. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 4/3/2013. (pac)

u.s. OIS;~:

OlS TR\C I J

flL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

TAMMY L. BELL,
Plaintiff,

v.
MICHAEL J. AS TRUE ,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)

)

'lij\3 ~PR -3 pt\ 2: 49
CLERl(

Case No. 5: 12-cv-25

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

(Docs. 8, 12 & 24)

This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's March 6,
2013 Report and Recommendation ("R & R"). Defendant has filed a motion to reverse
decision of commissioner. (Doc. 8) Defendant opposes the motion and has filed a
motion for order affirming decision ofthe commissioner. (Doc. 12) Neither party has
objected to the R & R, and the deadline for doing so has expired.
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)(I); accord

Cullen, 194 F.3d at 405. A district judge, however, is not required to review the factual
or legal conclusions ofthe 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-three page R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the
factual record and the motions before the court and determined that among other things,
the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") is based upon an erroneous legal
standard and is not supported by substantial evidence. The Magistrate Judge
recommended that the matter be remanded for further proceedings and a new decision.
Neither party has objected to this recommendation which the court finds well-reasoned.
For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's
R & R as the court's Order and Opinion, and GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to reverse
decision of the commissioner, DENIES the Defendant's motion for order affirming the
decision of the commissioner, and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings and a
new decision.
SO ORDERED.
?/d

Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this _J_ day of April, 2013.

Christina Reiss, Chief Judge

United States District Court

2