Redgrave v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
This text of Redgrave v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Redgrave 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.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Jennifer Redgrave, No. CV-21-00267-TUC-RM (EJM)
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On June 30, 2022, Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (Doc. 22) recommending that this Court remand the above-captioned 17 matter to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings. No objections to 18 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 Markovich’s Report and Recommendation, the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in 4|| Magistrate Judge Markovich’s Report and Recommendation. 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted and adopted in full. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is remanded to 9|| the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings consistent || with the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 11 || accordingly and close this case. 12 Dated this 29th day of July, 2022. 13 14 piles □□ 16 ANGUL Bf Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 17 United States District □□□□□ 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Redgrave v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redgrave-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2022.