Minervini v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

RAJEANA CAROLE MINERVINI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 3:19-cv-00881 v. ) JUDGE RICHARDSON ) ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social ) Security, ) ) Defendants.

ORDER Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 20), recommending that Defendant’s “Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Sentence Four, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), With Remand to Defendant” (Doc. No. 19) be granted and that the Court enter a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure reversing the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)’s decision and remanding this case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). No Objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. The failure to object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Frias v. Frias, No. 2:18-cv-00076, 2019 WL 549506, at * 2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019); Hart v. Bee Property Mgmt., No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL 1242372, at * 1 (E.D. Mich. March 18, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Ashraf v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018); Benson v. Walden Security, No. 3:18-cv-0010, 2018 WL 6322332, at * 3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. /d. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendant’s “Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Sentence Four, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), With Remand to Defendant” (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED. The ALJ’s decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. IT IS SO ORDERED.

CLE Richourdton Ci Rcd UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE