Filed: Jun. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2018
Summary: Decision and Order LAWRENCE J. VILARDO , District Judge . On July 7, 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action. Docket Item 1. On November 17, 2016, this Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Docket Item 7. On November 14, 2016, the plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to remand for further proceedings, Docket Item 6; on January 23, 2017, the defendant respond
Summary: Decision and Order LAWRENCE J. VILARDO , District Judge . On July 7, 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action. Docket Item 1. On November 17, 2016, this Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Docket Item 7. On November 14, 2016, the plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to remand for further proceedings, Docket Item 6; on January 23, 2017, the defendant responde..
More
Decision and Order
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO, District Judge.
On July 7, 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action. Docket Item 1.
On November 17, 2016, this Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Docket Item 7. On November 14, 2016, the plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to remand for further proceedings, Docket Item 6; on January 23, 2017, the defendant responded and cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings, Docket Item 8; and on February 20, 2017, the plaintiff replied, Docket Item 11. On May 14, 2018, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") finding that the plaintiff's motion should be granted and that the defendant's motion should be denied. Docket Item 12. The parties did not object to the R&R, and the time to do so now has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge's recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).
Although not required to do so in light of the above, this Court nevertheless has reviewed Judge Roemer's R&R. Based on that review and the absence of any objections, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Roemer's recommendation to grant the plaintiff's motion and deny the defendant's motion.
For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to remand for further proceedings, Docket Item 6, is GRANTED; the defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, Docket Item 8, is DENIED; the decision of the Commissioner is VACATED; and the matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file.
SO ORDERED.
