Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00366/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00366-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Maria Francisca Aldaz,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant.

No. CV-18-00366-TUC-RM (JR)

ORDER 

On February 5, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau issued a Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 25) recommending that this Court reverse the Commissioner of 

Social Security’s final decision and remand to the ALJ to conduct further proceedings. 

No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.

A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 

magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 

72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 

filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 

in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 

F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 

district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, 

Case 4:18-cv-00366-RM-JR Document 26 Filed 02/25/20 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 

clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).

The Court has reviewed Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation, the parties’ 

briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Judge Rateau’s Report and 

Recommendation. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) is accepted 

and adopted in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Decision of the Commissioner of Social 

Security is reversed and that this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this Order and with Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25.) 

Dated this 24th day of February, 2020.

Case 4:18-cv-00366-RM-JR Document 26 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 2