Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cindy Lou Peterson v. Colvin

United States District Court, District of Nevada

November 4, 2014

CINDY LOU PETERSON, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant

For Cindy Lou Peterson, Plaintiff: Joshua R Harris, Richard A Harris, Richard Harris Law Firm, Las Vegas, NV.

For Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant: Blaine T Welsh, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Attorney's Office, Las Vegas, NV; Heather M Moss, Social Security Administration, San Francisco, CA.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE CARL W. HOFFMAN

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, United States District Judge.

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25) of the Honorable Carl W. Hoffman, United States Magistrate Judge, entered August 12, 2014.

A district court " may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to " 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); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due in this case by August 29, 2014. No objections have been filed. The Court has, nonetheless, reviewed the record in this case and concurs with Magistrate Judge's recommendation(s) that (ECF No.15) Motion for Reversal/Remand be granted subject to the modification that it be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the terms of this report and recommendation. FURTHER Recommended that Defendant's Cross-Motion to Affirm (contained within ECF No. 16 Response) be denied. Therefore, the Court has determined that Magistrate Judge's Recommendation should be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this opinion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. (ECF No. 15) Motion for Reversal/Remand be granted subject to the modification that it be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the terms of this report and recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Cross-Motion to Affirm (contained within Doc#16 Response) be denied.

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close case.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.