Black v. Berryhill, 2:17-cv-00153-JNP-EJF. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Utah
Number: infdco20180326c75
Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JILL N. PARRISH , District Judge . Plaintiff Cristal Hatch Black filed this action asking the court to remand the final agency decision denying her Disability Insurance Benefits and Social Security Income Under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). The matter was fully briefed, and after review of the parties' briefings, Judge Furse issued a Report a
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JILL N. PARRISH , District Judge . Plaintiff Cristal Hatch Black filed this action asking the court to remand the final agency decision denying her Disability Insurance Benefits and Social Security Income Under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). The matter was fully briefed, and after review of the parties' briefings, Judge Furse issued a Report an..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JILL N. PARRISH, District Judge.
Plaintiff Cristal Hatch Black filed this action asking the court to remand the final agency decision denying her Disability Insurance Benefits and Social Security Income Under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
The matter was fully briefed, and after review of the parties' briefings, Judge Furse issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22). Judge Furse recommends that the court remand the Commissioner's decision. The Report and Recommendation specified that the parties should file objections within fourteen days of service. No objections were filed, and the time to object has now passed. Because no objections were filed, the court reviews the record for "clear error." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879).1
Based on the court's review of the record, the relevant legal authority, and the Report and Recommendation, the court concludes that there is no "clear error" with respect to the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22) is ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. The Commissioner's decision is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.
FootNotes
1. The Tenth Circuit has adopted the "firm waiver" rule. United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., With Bldgs., Appurtenances, Improvements, & Contents, 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996). Under this rule, "the failure to make timely objections to the magistrate's findings or recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions." Id. (quoting Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991)). Precluding appellate review of any issue not raised in an objection "prevents a litigant from `sandbagging' the district judge by failing to object and then appealing." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985).
Source: Leagle
