Ugalde v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

Ugalde v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedSeptember 21, 2022

Docket4:21-cv-00312

StatusUnknown

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

Ugalde v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

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

9 Raquel Nancy Ugalde, No. CV-21-00312-TUC-RM (LAB)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On August 15, 2022, Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (Doc. 19) recommending that this Court affirm the final decision of the 17 Commissioner of Social Security. No objections to the Report and Recommendation 18 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 Bowman’s Report and Recommendation, the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted || and adopted in full. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of 8 || Social Security is affirmed. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of || the Commissioner and close this case. 10 Dated this 20th day of September, 2022. 11 12 ff 3 eh Lien) 14 ANGULAyf Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 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 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Raquel Nancy Ugalde, No. CV-21-00312-TUC-RM (LAB)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On August 15, 2022, Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (Doc. 19) recommending that this Court affirm the final decision of the 17 Commissioner of Social Security. No objections to the Report and Recommendation 18 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 Bowman’s Report and Recommendation, the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted || and adopted in full. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of 8 || Social Security is affirmed. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of || the Commissioner and close this case. 10 Dated this 20th day of September, 2022. 11 12 ff 3 eh Lien) 14 ANGULAyf Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 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)

Ugalde v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ugalde-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack