Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bortolamedi v. Colvin, 2:17-cv-01473-JAD-BNW. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20190918a79 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2019
Summary: Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Remanding for Further Proceedings [ECF Nos. 13, 18, 25] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . Plaintiff Jacquelynn Bortolamedi brings this action to challenge the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her request for disability-insurance benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The magistrate judge has evaluated the briefing in this case and recommends 1 that I grant in part and deny in part Bortolamedi's motion for judgme
More

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Remanding for Further Proceedings

[ECF Nos. 13, 18, 25]

Plaintiff Jacquelynn Bortolamedi brings this action to challenge the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her request for disability-insurance benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The magistrate judge has evaluated the briefing in this case and recommends1that I grant in part and deny in part Bortolamedi's motion for judgment on the pleadings2; remand this case for further proceedings regarding Drs. Hodde, Austin, and Madow's opinions and the vocational expert's testimony; and deny the Commissioner's cross-motion to affirm.3The deadline for objections to that recommendation passed without objection or any request to extend the deadline to file one. "[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation unless objections are filed."4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation [ECF No. 25] is ADOPTED in full;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for judgment on the pleadings [ECF No. 13] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in PART, consistent with the report and recommendation [ECF No. 25], and the Commissioner's cross-motion to affirm [ECF No. 18] is DENIED. This case is REMANDED for further proceedings regarding Drs. Hodde, Austin, and Madow's opinions and the vocational expert's testimony.

The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.

FootNotes


1. ECF No. 25.
2. ECF No. 13.
3. ECF No. 18.
4. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer