Heyl v. Astrue - Document 18

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 � 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