Osorio v. Berryhill

District Court, D. Nevada

Osorio v. Berryhill

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 CELIA OSORIO, Case No.: 2:18-cv-02044-APG-EJY

4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation, Granting Part and 5 v. Denying in Part Motion to Remand, and Denying Motion to Affirm 6 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, [ECF Nos. 13, 14, 17] 7 Defendant

8 On February 5, 2020, Magistrate Judge Youchah recommended that I grant in part and 9 deny in part plaintiff Celia Osorio’s motion to remand and deny the defendant’s motion to 10 affirm. ECF No. 17. Neither party filed an objection. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de 11 novo review of the report and recommendation.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1) (requiring district courts 12 to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings 13 to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) 14 (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 15 de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 16 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Youchah’s report and recommendation 17 (ECF No. 17) is accepted, plaintiff Celia Osorio’s motion to remand (ECF No. 13) is 18 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the defendant’s motion to affirm (ECF No. 14) 19 is DENIED. This action is remanded to the administrative law judge for further proceedings 20 21 22 23 1}| consistent with the report and recommendation and this order. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case. 3 Dated: February 20, 2020. 4

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Reference

Status
Unknown