Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SARAH MARIE GARCIA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-01510-JD
)
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 	)
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell’s Report and
Recommendation (“R. & R.”) [Doc. No. 16] issued on September 15, 2026.1
Judge Mitchell recommends that the Court reverse and remand the final decision
of Defendant for further administrative proceedings. [See Doc. No. 16 at 2, 18]. Judge
Mitchell advised the parties of their right to file objections to the R. & R. with the Clerk
of Court by September 29, 2026, and explained that failure to timely object waives the
right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained in the R. & R. [Id. at
18 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), and Moore v. United States,
950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991))].
“[A] party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must
be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or
1 This Court referred the case to Judge Mitchell on April 2, 2026. [Doc. No. 7].
The record contains the Social Security Administration Record filed by Defendant [Doc.
No. 4], and the parties’ arguments in their briefs [Doc. Nos. 1, 6, 14].
Case 5:25-cv-01510-JD Document 18 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 3

2
for appellate review.” United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir.
1996). By not objecting to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the parties
waive their rights to challenge the legal and factual basis for the magistrate judge’s
decision. See Ayala v. United States, 980 F.2d 1342, 1352 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that
the plaintiffs “waived their right to appeal the magistrate’s ruling” because they did not
file any objections); Moore, 950 F.2d at 659 (“Our waiver rule provides that the failure to
make timely objection to the magistrate’s findings or recommendations waives appellate
review of both factual and legal questions.”).
Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed objections to the R. & R. by the deadline, and
both parties waived their right to challenge the recommended disposition. Both parties
have counsel. Neither party filed anything in response to the R. & R. or sought an
extension of time to do so. “The waiver rule as a procedural bar need not be applied when
the interests of justice so dictate.” Moore, 950 F.2d at 659. However, considering the
factors, the interests of justice do not warrant an exception to the waiver rule in this case.
See Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010) (explaining that the
court may grant relief from the waiver rule for failure to timely object to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation in the “interests of justice” by considering factors
such as a pro se litigant’s effort to comply, the force and plausibility of the explanation
for the party’s failure to comply, and the importance of the issues raised).
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
16] and REVERSES and REMANDS the decision of Defendant for further
Case 5:25-cv-01510-JD Document 18 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 3

3
administrative proceedings consistent with the R. & R. A separate judgment in favor of
Plaintiff will follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of October 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-01510-JD Document 18 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 3