Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedJuly 16, 2025

Docket4:24-cv-00402

StatusUnknown

This text of Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Martin 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.

Bluebook

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Jimmy Martin, Jr., No. CV-24-00402-TUC-JCH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera’s Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 23). Judge Aguilera recommends reversing the Social 17 Security Administration Commissioner’s decision and remanding this case for a new 18 hearing and decision. See Doc. 23 at 1. Neither party objects to the R&R. See generally 19 Docket. 20 A district court reviews objected-to portions of an R&R de novo. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 22 (9th Cir. 1989). Failure to timely object may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de 23 novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 24 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b) of the 25 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court 26 need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept 27 the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s 28 note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). 2 After independent review, the Court is satisfied that Judge Aguilera’s 3 || recommendation is sound. The Court will adopt the R&R in full. 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED adopting in full the R&R (Doc. 23). 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED reversing the Commissioner’s decision and 7\| remanding for further administrative proceedings consistent with R&R. The Clerk of 8 || Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 9 Dated this 15th day of July, 2025. 10 11 f 4) 12 a HA 13 / / John C. Hinderaker 14 _/United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Jimmy Martin, Jr., No. CV-24-00402-TUC-JCH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera’s Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 23). Judge Aguilera recommends reversing the Social 17 Security Administration Commissioner’s decision and remanding this case for a new 18 hearing and decision. See Doc. 23 at 1. Neither party objects to the R&R. See generally 19 Docket. 20 A district court reviews objected-to portions of an R&R de novo. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 22 (9th Cir. 1989). Failure to timely object may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de 23 novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 24 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b) of the 25 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court 26 need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept 27 the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s 28 note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). 2 After independent review, the Court is satisfied that Judge Aguilera’s 3 || recommendation is sound. The Court will adopt the R&R in full. 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED adopting in full the R&R (Doc. 23). 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED reversing the Commissioner’s decision and 7\| remanding for further administrative proceedings consistent with R&R. The Clerk of 8 || Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 9 Dated this 15th day of July, 2025. 10 11 f 4) 12 a HA 13 / / John C. Hinderaker 14 _/United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack