Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Celina Wilson, No. CV-21-00475-TUC-SHR 10 Plaintiff, Order Adopting Report and Recommendation v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

On December 7, 2022, Magistrate Lynnette C. Kimmins issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which she recommended the Court remand this matter for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 23.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any objections. No objections have been filed.

If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the District Court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the statute for review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.”

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.

The Court has reviewed the record and Judge Kimmins’s R&R. The Court finds the R&R well-reasoned and agrees with Judge Kimmins’s conclusion that this matter should be remanded for further administrative proceedings and agrees with Judge Kimmins’s ! || reasoning in concluding the ALJ should evaluate the entirety of the record, obtain further 2|| evidence as necessary (including a psychological consultation and/or cognitive testing), and evaluate the onset date of Plaintiffs disability.

4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is ADOPTED and || this matter is remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Order and Judge Kimmin’s Report & Recommendation.

8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall docket accordingly and || close this action.

10 Dated this 22nd day of December, 2022.

12 □ Ait led 14 Honorable Scott H. Rash _/ United States District Judge _2-