Rivera v. Social Security Administration

District Court, D. New Mexico·Decided August 9, 2022·No. 1:20-cv-01104·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ASHLEY RIVERA,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 1:20-cv-01104-KWR-SCY

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS MATTER is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough’s July 25, 2022 Proposed Findings And Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”). Doc. 38. Judge Yarbrough recommended the Court grant Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Reverse And/Or Remand, Doc. 29, and remand for further proceedings. Judge Yarbrough found that the ALJ’s reasons for disregarding the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating providers lacked substantial evidence. Doc. 38 at 1. Judge Yarbrough notified the parties that they had 14 days from service of the PFRD to file any objections to the PFRD. Id. at 12. The parties have not filed any objections to the PFRD, thereby waiving their right to review of the proposed disposition. See United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, upon review of the PFRD, the Court CONCURS with Judge Yarbrough’s findings and recommendation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. The Court ADOPTS Judge Yarbrough’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, Doc. 38; 2. Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Reverse And/Or Remand, Doc. 29, is GRANTED; and 3. The Court REMANDS this case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this Order and Judge Yarbrough’s PFRD. IT IS SO ORDERED. Kz ae UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Rivera v. Social Security Administration, (D.N.M. 2022).

Rivera v. Social Security Administration (Rivera v. Social Security Administration) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. 2121 East 30th Street
73 F.3d 1057 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)