Cornell v. Berryhill, in her capacity as Commissioner, Social Security Administration

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA DAVID J. CORNELL, Case No.: 2:19-cv-00104-APG-BNW 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation, Granting in Part and v. Denying in Part Motion to Remand, and Denying Motion to Affirm NANCY A. BERRYHILL, [ECF Nos, 22, 24, 25] 7 Defendant 8 On February 6, 2020, Magistrate Judge Weksler recommended that I grant in part and deny in part plaintiff David Cornell’s motion to remand and deny the defendant’s motion to affirm. ECF No. 25. Neither party filed an objection. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings which objection is made’); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (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 Weksler’s report and recommendation 17|| (ECF No. 25) is accepted, plaintiff David Cornell’s motion to remand (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the defendant’s motion to affirm (ECF No. 24) DENIED. This action is remanded to the administrative law judge for further proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation and this order. The clerk of court is instructed to this case.

22 DATED this 24th day of February, 2020.

23 Le ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE