Osbond v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

Osbond v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedJanuary 12, 2024

Docket4:23-cv-00304

StatusUnknown

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

Osbond v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

9 Lillian A Osbond, No. CV-23-00304-TUC-RM (AMM)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On December 12, 2023, Magistrate Judge Angela M. Martinez issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (Doc. 16) recommending that this Court grant Defendant 17 Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion to Dismiss and dismiss the above-captioned 18 case without prejudice. 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 Martinez’s Report and Recommendation, the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Martinez’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is accepted || and adopted in full. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is || granted. The above-captioned case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court 9|| is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 10 Dated this 11th day of January, 2024. 11 12 13 — 4 Pf’ □□ 14 DH Wt 2 □□ Honorable Rostehary Mafquez 15 United States District □□□□□ 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 Lillian A Osbond, No. CV-23-00304-TUC-RM (AMM)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On December 12, 2023, Magistrate Judge Angela M. Martinez issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (Doc. 16) recommending that this Court grant Defendant 17 Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion to Dismiss and dismiss the above-captioned 18 case without prejudice. 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 Martinez’s Report and Recommendation, the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Martinez’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is accepted || and adopted in full. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is || granted. The above-captioned case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court 9|| is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 10 Dated this 11th day of January, 2024. 11 12 13 — 4 Pf’ □□ 14 DH Wt 2 □□ Honorable Rostehary Mafquez 15 United States District □□□□□ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Osbond v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osbond-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack