Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and Recommendation (“Report”) suggesting denying Dickey-Williams’ motion and granting the Commissioner for Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) motion. Report, ECF No. 13. Dickey-Williams filed three timely objections to the Report. She argues the Report improperly dismissed the ALJ’s failure to apply the treating physician rule to the opinions of Dr. Clague; the Report did not properly consider the opinions of psychologist Ross Thayer; and the report overlooked the ALJ’s failure to discuss whether Dickey-Williams’ migraines affected her residual function capacity. Objection at 2-7, ECF No. 14. Civil Rule 72 does not require the Court to hold a hearing when reviewing a magistrate judge’s findings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980) (<HOLDING>); see also Estate of Wyatt v. WAMU/JP Morgan 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that appellant was entitled to a de novo review however he was not entitled to a de novo review of an argument never raised (B) recognizing de novo standard of review (C) holding 28 usc  636 did not require a hearing for de novo review of a magistrates findings (D) holding that review of the construction of a sentencing statute is de novo (E) holding that the error caused by the magistrate judges unauthorized postjudgment order was cured by the district courts later de novo review of the magistrates findings and conclusions
Output (English): holding that the error caused by the magistrate judges unauthorized postjudgment order was cured by the district courts later de novo review of the magistrates findings and conclusions