Berman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
This text of Berman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Berman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Dina Berman, No. CV-21-00030-TUC-RM
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On August 17, 2022, Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (Doc. 26) recommending that this Court reverse the final decision of 17 the Commissioner of Social Security and remand for further consideration on an open 18 record. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. 19 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 20 magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 21 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 22 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 23 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 24 in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 25 advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 26 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 27 district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, 28 CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 1 || clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). 2 The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s Report and || Recommendation, the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court agrees with the findings and analysis contained in Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s Report and Recommendation.! 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26) is accepted and adopted in full. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed and the above-captioned case is remanded to the || Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings, pursuant to the 11 || fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and in accordance with the findings of the Report 12 || and Recommendation. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of 13 || Plaintiff and close this case. 14 Dated this 2nd day of September, 2022. 15 16 1 pf 18 ANGULAyf Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 19 United States District □□□□□ 20 21 22 23 24 ' The Court notes one error in the Report and Recommendation, which appears to merely bea typographical error and does not affect the Report and Recommendation’s □□□□□□□□ and analysis. In explaining the five-step sequential evaluation process followed by the 26|| Commissioner to determine whether a claimant is disabled, the Report and Recommendation states that a claimant is not disabled if her impairments or combination thereof do not meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App’x 1. (Doc. 26 at 6.) The Report and Recommendation should instead have stated that a claimant is disabled if her impairments or combination thereof meet or equal a listed impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i11). _2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Berman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berman-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2022.