Briggs v. Saul

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA SHELENE IRENE BRIGGS, Case No.: 2:19-cv-01094-APG-NJK 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Remanding This v. Case ANDREW M. SAUL, [ECF Nos. 42, 43, 48] 7 Defendant 8 On December 18, 2020, Magistrate Judge Koppe recommended that I grant plaintiff Shelene Briggs’ motion to remand, deny the Commissioner’s motion to affirm, and remand this action to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings. ECF No. 48. No one filed an objection. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo 13}| determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is 14|| made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the 15}| district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 16}| objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)).

17 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 48) is accepted, plaintiff Shelene Briggs’ motion to remand (ECF No. 42) is 19] GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s motion to affirm (ECF No. 43) is DENIED. This matter REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case.

22 DATED this 6th day of January, 2021. OIA ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE