Opinion
20-CV-2075-LRR
01-31-2022
JOVIDA A. OWENS, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER
LINDA R. READE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The matter before the court is United States Chief Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney's Report and Recommendation (docket no. 32). The Report and Recommendation recommends that the court affirm Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's (“Commissioner”) final decision denying Plaintiff Jovida A. Owens's application for Title XVI supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits.
On September 21, 2020, Owens filed a Complaint (docket no. 3) requesting judicial review of the Commissioner's decision to deny her application for SSI benefits. On April 30, 2021, after receiving multiple extensions to file an answer, see docket nos. 8, 10, 14, 17, the Commissioner filed the Answer (docket no. 18). The matter was briefed, and, on October 13, 2021, was referred to Chief Judge Mahoney for issuance of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). See Plaintiff's Brief (docket no. 28); Defendant's Brief (docket no. 29); Plaintiff's Reply (docket no. 30). On January 14, 2022, Chief Judge Mahoney issued the Report and Recommendation. In the Report and Recommendation, Chief Judge Mahoney advised the parties that “[o]bjections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)” and “[f]ailure to object to the Report and Recommendation waives the right to de novo review by the district court of any portion of the Report and Recommendation, as well as the right to appeal from the findings of fact contained therein.” Report and Recommendation at 14 (citation omitted). Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed.
Pursuant to statute, this court's standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is as follows:
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. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Similarly, Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) provides for de novo review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation on dispositive motions when objections are made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that it is reversible error for a district court to fail to conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation when such review is required. See, e.g., United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003). The court reviews the unobjected-to portions of the proposed findings or report and recommendation for “plain error.” See United States v. Rodriguez, 484 F.3d 1006, 1010-11 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that, where a party does not file objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the party waives the right to de novo review and the court will review the decision for plain error).
In this case, no objections have been filed, and it appears to the court upon review of Chief Judge Mahoney's findings and conclusions that there is no ground to reject or modify them. Therefore, the court ACCPETS Chief Judge Mahoney's Report and Recommendation of January 14, 2022. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (docket no. 32) is ADOPTED and the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED in accordance with the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.