Heyl v. Astrue
Filing
18
ORDERED that P's 11 Motion for Reversal is DENIED. FURTHER ORD that D's 12 / 13 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to P's Motion for Reversal is GRANTED. Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/21/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) Modified on 4/22/2010 to correct spelling(DRM).
<![CDATA[
1
l
2 3
4 5
6
UN I ED STATES DI T R I T C O U R T T S C
7
8
DI TR I T O F N EVA D A SC
9 RUTH HEYL,
11
) )
3:9- V- 49- CJ( PC) 0C 2 R V
l 0
Pii lnf at, f
) oon nE )
) )
1 MCAL.SRDefendant. 2 IH EJATU, E 1 3
1 4
) )
1 5
Bef r t e Cour i Plitfs Obecins t Repor and Recommendaton ofUnied oe h ts an i' j to o f t i t
l St t s Magitat Judge ( 15)fld on Mar h 15,2010. Thi acton was r f red t U. . 6 ae sr e #i e c si ee r o S 1 Magitat JudgeValre P.Cook puruantt 28 U. . . 636( )1)B)and LR I 1- .The 7 sr e ei es o SC â b( ( B4 1 Magitat Judge submied herRep r and Recommendat n (/4)on Febr ar 26,201 , 8 sr e t t ot i /1 o uy 0
1 r com m endi g t att i Cour ent r an or er denyi g Pl i tf ' M oton f r Rever aloft e 9e n h hs te d n a n ifs io s h
2 Commison r Decson a d Poit a dAu h r is i Su p d Th r o ( 11 a dgr n ig 0 s i e' s ii n n s n t o ie n p o e e f # ) n a t t n
21 Def ndants Cr s - oton f rSum m ar Judgm entand M em or ndum i Suppor T her ofand e ' o sM i o y a n t e
22 i Opposion t Plitf' Moton f rReveralofte Commisiners Deciin ( 12/ 3) n t o an i s i o i f s h so ' so # 1 . 23 Def ndants Response/ orectd Response t Plitf' Obecins t t e Repod and e ' cre o an i s j to o h f 2 RecommendatonofU. .Magitat Judge ( 1 / 7)wasfld on Mar h 1 ,201 . 4 i S sr e # 61 i e c8 0
25 1 A N A LY S I . S
2 A. 6
Revi w of M agi t at Judge' O r er e sr e sd
2 7 Pu s a tt 2 U. . . 636( )1 ()a d L I 3 2,a p r mayfe s ecf wrt n ru n o 8 S C j b ( )c n R B at y i p ic ie l it 28 obecinst t efndigsand r com mendatonsofa magitat j dgemade pur uantt LR j to o h i n e i sr e u s o
I 1- . The di ti tc ur m us m ake a de nov det r i aton oft ose podi ns oft e B4 s rc o t t o em n i h o h
1 magitat j dge' r pod t whih obect n i made and may accept rj ct ormodi ,i sr e u s e o c jis o , ee , fn y 2 whol ori par,hefndigsorec m mendatonsmadebytemagitat j dge.LR I 3- ( ) e n tt i n ro i h sr e u B 2 b.
3 De novo r vi w m eans t e cour m ustconsi ert e m ateranew , t e s m e as i i had ee h t dh t ha ft
4 not been hear bef r and as i no deci i n pr vi usl had been r nder d. Ness v. d oe f so eo y e e
5 Commisiner 954 F.d 1495,1 97 ( t Ci.1992) Thus,alhough t e dititcour need so , 2 4 9h r . t h src t
6 nothol a de novo hearng , he court oblgaton i t ar i e atis ow n i dependentconcl si n d it ' i i s o rv s t n uo
7 abouthos podinsoft emagitat j dge' fndigsorr com m endatont whihobectons te o h sr e u s i n e io c ji 8 ar made.Unied St t sv.Remsiq,874 F,d 61 , 7 ( t Ci.1989) e t ae n 2 4 61 9 h r ,
9 Afer conductng a de nov r vi w oft e r cor ,t e Cour ac ept and adopt t e t i oee h e dh tc s sh
1 Magitat Judge' Repor and Recommendaton(/ 4) 0 sr e s t i /1 .
1l 1 2 11 CO N C LU S I N 1. O The M agi tat Judge t er f r pr pery f und t att e A LJ' deci i n was suppoded sr e h eo e o l o hh S so
13 by subst ntalevi ence,accor i gl , ai d dn y
1 4
I I H E R EB Y O RD E R E D t atPl i tf' M ot n f r Rever aloft e Com m i si ners TS h an i s f io o s h so '
1 Deciinand Poit andAutortesi Suppod Ther of( 11)i DENI D. 5 so ns hi n i e# s E
1 6 I I FU R TH ER O R D ER ED t atDef ndant Cr ss M otonf r um m al ludgm ent nd TS I I e ' o - i os s a 1 M em or ndum i Suppor Ther ofand i O pposii n t Pl i t fs M oton f r Rever al t e 7 a n t e n to o a n i ' f io s of h
1 Co m ison r De iin( 1 / 3)sGRANTED.Th Clr o t eCou s al t ru gmen 8 m s i e ' cso # 2 1 i s e e k fh d h len e j d t
19 accor i gl . dn y
2 0
I I SO O R D ER ED . TS
2 1
22
23
D T DTijydy f pjgj, A E :h ,)'a oA r (( sz . ' , );
Robed C . UN I ED S T es TES DI TRI T JUDGE SC
24
25
26
27 28
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
