Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

W.D. Texas

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedAugust 28, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-00144

StatusUnknown

This text of Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) 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

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (W.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

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

MARIA RAMIREZ, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CAUSE NO. EP-22-CV-144-KC-LS § KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting § Commissioner of Social Security, § § 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 Leon Schydlower. On August 11, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 18, which recommended that the Court reverse and remand the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance. Id. at 1, 7. 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. See R&R 15. 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

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 . . . .”). States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (stating this standard of review “‘is appropriate only where there has been no objection to the magistrate’s ruling”); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988) (“[A] party is not entitled to de novo review of a 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 in its entirety and ORDERS that the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and REMANDED. SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 28th day of August, 2023. Ndr UNIFED STATES DISTRICT JYPBGE

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

MARIA RAMIREZ, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CAUSE NO. EP-22-CV-144-KC-LS § KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting § Commissioner of Social Security, § § 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 Leon Schydlower. On August 11, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 18, which recommended that the Court reverse and remand the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance. Id. at 1, 7. 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. See R&R 15. 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

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 . . . .”). States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (stating this standard of review “‘is appropriate only where there has been no objection to the magistrate’s ruling”); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988) (“[A] party is not entitled to de novo review of a 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 in its entirety and ORDERS that the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and REMANDED. SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 28th day of August, 2023. Ndr UNIFED STATES DISTRICT JYPBGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-txwd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack