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.

Boggan v. Colvin

United States District Court, D. Nevada

November 21, 2014

MICHAEL J. BOGGAN, Plantiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner agent of Social Security Administration, Defendant

For Michael J. Boggan, Plaintiff: Gerald Welt, LEAD ATTORNEY, Gerald M. Welt, Chtd., Las Vegas, NV; Marc V Kalagian, LEAD ATTORNEY, Rohlfing & Kalagian, LLP, Long Beach, CA.

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

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAM V. FERENBACH

RICHARD F. BOULWARE II, United States District Judge.

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22) of the Honorable Cam V. Ferenbach, United States Magistrate Judge, entered May 22, 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 by June 8, 2014. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with Magistrate Judge's recommendation(s) that (ECF No.15) Plaintiff's Motion for Reversal be GRANTED and the case be remanded for further proceedings. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that (ECF No. 19) Defendant's Cross Motion to Affirm 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. 22) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. (ECF No.15) Plaintiff's Motion for Reversal be GRANTED and the case be remanded for further proceedings. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that (ECF No. 19) Defendant's Cross Motion to Affirm 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.