Fuller v. Commissioner of Social Security

W.D. Texas

Fuller v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedMarch 7, 2025

Docket3:23-cv-00417

StatusUnknown

This text of Fuller v. Commissioner of Social Security (Fuller v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fuller v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

JONATHAN FULLER, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CAUSE NO. EP-23-CV-417-KC-MAT § COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL § SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, § § Defendant. §

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 (Sth Cir. 1988) (“[A] party is not entitled to de novo review ofa 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.

LEEN CARDONE UNfTED STATES DISTRX&CT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

JONATHAN FULLER, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CAUSE NO. EP-23-CV-417-KC-MAT § COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL § SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, § § Defendant. §

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 (Sth Cir. 1988) (“[A] party is not entitled to de novo review ofa 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.

LEEN CARDONE UNfTED STATES DISTRX&CT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Fuller v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-commissioner-of-social-security-txwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack