Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00349/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00349-1/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 

Tracy Lee Ramsey, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W Colvin, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-15-00349-TUC-RM

ORDER 

 On August 2, 2016, Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro issued a Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 18) recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff’s request to 

reverse the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) final decision and 

remand to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to conduct further proceedings. No 

objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed, and the time for filing 

objections has expired. 

 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 

Case 4:15-cv-00349-RM Document 19 Filed 09/01/16 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 

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

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 Ferraro’s Report and Recommendation, the parties’ 

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

Recommendation. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is accepted 

and adopted in full. The Commissioner’s final decision is reversed, and this case is 

remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Order and with Judge Ferraro’s 

Report and Recommendation. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 

accordingly and close this case. 

 Dated this 31st day of August, 2016. 

Honorable Rosemary Márquez

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00349-RM Document 19 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 2