Filed: Jun. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DAN AARON POLSTER , District Judge . Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz ("R&R"), Doc #. 13, issued on June 7, 2018, which recommends that the Court reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand the matter. Under the relevant statute, Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DAN AARON POLSTER , District Judge . Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz ("R&R"), Doc #. 13, issued on June 7, 2018, which recommends that the Court reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand the matter. Under the relevant statute, Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DAN AARON POLSTER, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz ("R&R"), Doc #. 13, issued on June 7, 2018, which recommends that the Court reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand the matter.
Under the relevant statute,
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, where a party fails to object, a district court is not required to conduct any review, de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The failure to file written objections also results in a waiver of the right to appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Here, any objections to the R&R are due on June 21, 2018. On June 19, 2018, the Commissioner filed a Response, Doc #: 14, stating that she would not be filing objections to the R&R. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's thorough R&R. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ erred in omitting limitations from the residual function capacity ("RFC") assessment that he ostensibly credited.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R, Doc. # 13, in full, REVERSES the Commissioner's decision, and REMANDS Plaintiff's case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this Order and the R&R.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
