Tivon Humphries v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Humphries · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · April 10, 2026 · No. CV-25-02507-PHX-SPL

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona reviewed objections to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in a Social Security disability benefits case. The court conducted de novo review, adopted the Report and Recommendation, overruled the objections, affirmed the Commissioner's decision, and directed entry of judgment.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Decision date
April 10, 2026
Docket number
CV-25-02507-PHX-SPL
Procedural posture
Plaintiff sought judicial review of the denial of disability insurance benefits. After a magistrate judge recommended affirming the Administrative Law Judge's decision, Plaintiff filed objections and the Commissioner responded.
Standard of review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district judge reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation to which specific written objections are properly made. Portions without specific objections need not be reviewed, and consideration of evidence or arguments raised for the first time in an objection is discretionary.
Precedential value
Unpublished district court order; precedential status is unknown.
Parties
Tivon Humphries v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

judicial review of agency actionadministrative lawcivil procedure

Practice areas

social securityadministrative lawcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court should adopt the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation after reviewing Plaintiff's specific objections de novo.
  2. Whether the ALJ committed reversible error in determining Plaintiff's capability of making a successful adjustment to other work and in considering vocational expert testimony.

Holdings

  1. When a party timely files specific written objections to a Report and Recommendation, the district judge reviews de novo the properly objected-to portions; portions lacking specific objections need not be reviewed, and arguments or evidence raised for the first time in an objection need not receive de novo review because consideration of them is discretionary.
  2. The ALJ's decision contained no reversible error regarding Plaintiff's capability of making a successful adjustment to other work or the consideration of vocational expert testimony; the Commissioner's final decision was therefore affirmed.

Key quotations

A proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. (at 1)
After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches the same conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge. (at 2)

Factual background

Plaintiff sought disability insurance benefits from the Social Security Administration, but the benefits claim was denied. The ALJ addressed Plaintiff's capability of making a successful adjustment to other work and considered vocational expert testimony. The magistrate judge found no reversible error in the ALJ's decision, and the district court reached the same conclusion after reviewing the record and Plaintiff's objections.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed a complaint challenging the denial of disability insurance benefits. Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine issued a Report and Recommendation recommending affirmance of the ALJ's decision. Plaintiff objected, and the district court conducted de novo review of the properly objected-to portions, adopted the R&R in full, overruled the objections, affirmed the Commissioner's final decision, and directed entry of judgment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…