Summary
determining that RFC is "not an assessment of the ideal conditions under which the claimant will do best, fare best, or otherwise excel;" ALJ did not err by failing to include in RFC a physician's recommendation of conditions in which claimant would "fare best"
Summary of this case from Mendoza v. BerryhillOpinion
3:10-CV-01128-PK
01-23-2012
GERALD D. LEACH, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER
BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#29) on November 8, 2011, in which he recommends this Court remand this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings to evaluate the report of Keli Dean, Psy.D., in the context of the record as a whole. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). See also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not find any error.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#29). Accordingly, the Court REVERSES the Commissioner's decision and REMANDS this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings to evaluate the report of Keli Dean, Psy.D., in the context of the record as a whole.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge