Jennifer James v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

JENNIFER JAMES,

Plaintiff, 8:25CV364

v. ORDER COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

On July 8, 2022, plaintiff Jennifer James (“James”) applied for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., and supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. (Filing No. 7-2). She alleged disability beginning on September 1, 2018. Upon completing administrative review, defendant Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) denied her claims, concluding she was not disabled under the Act. On May 23, 2025, James sued the Commissioner in this Court (Filing No. 1) seeking relief from that final decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Mitchael v. Colvin, 809 F.3d 1050, 1055 (8th Cir. 2016). In accordance with General Order No. 2022-13 (Filing No. 4), James filed a motion to reverse and remand the Commissioner’s decision (Filing No. 22), and he filed a motion for an order affirming his decision (Filing No. 24). The Court referred both motions to the magistrate judge1 for initial review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (permitting such referral of dispositive matters). Now before the Court are those two motions and the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 26) recommending that the Court deny James’s motion,

1The Honorable Jacqueline M. DeLuca, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. grant the Commissioner’s motion, and affirm the denial of benefits. In making her recommendation, the magistrate judge advised the parties that failing to object as provided by the Court’s local rules “may be held to be a waiver of any right to appeal the Court’s adoption of the recommendation.” Neither party objected, and the time to do so has now passed. See NECivR 72.2(a).

Section 636(b)(1) requires the Court to “make a de novo review of . . . specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” But absent objection, further review is unnecessary. See Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (1991); Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 553 F.3d 609, 619-20 (8th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he failure to file objections eliminates not only the need for de novo review, but any review by the district court.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); NECivR 72.2.

Given that neither party has objected to the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation,

IT IS ORDERED: 1. The magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 26) is accepted. Any objections are deemed waived. 2. Plaintiff Jennifer James’s motion to reverse and remand (Filing No. 22) is denied. 3. The Commissioner’s motion to affirm (Filing No. 24) is granted, and his final decision to deny benefits is affirmed. 4. This case is dismissed with prejudice. 5. A separate judgment will issue.

Dated this 3rd day of June 2026. BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. Chief United States District Judge