Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23 ) is accepted and adopted by the Court. Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 24 ) are overruled. The final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 9/25/2024. (KJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

Scott Miller,

9
10

Plaintiff,
vs.

11
12

Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,

13
14

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-23-00664-PHX-SPL
ORDER

15

Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1), challenging the denial of his disability

16

insurance benefits. The Honorable Deborah M. Fine, United States Magistrate Judge,

17

issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 23), recommending that the Court

18

reverse the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and remand for further proceedings.

19

Judge Fine advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the

20

R&R and that failure to do so could be considered a waiver of the right to review (Doc. 23

21

at 20) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

22

2003)). Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 24), and no response was filed.

23

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

24

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a

25

timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R

26

that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires

27

specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United

28

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It

1

follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific

2

objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

3

U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial

4

economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or

5

arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s

6

decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622

7

(9th Cir. 2000).

8

The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently

9

developed record. Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations have also

10

been thoroughly considered.

11

After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches

12

the same conclusions reached by the magistrate judge. The R&R will be adopted in full.

13

Accordingly,

14
15

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 23) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 24) are overruled.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of the

18
19
20
21

Social Security Administration is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment
accordingly and terminate this case.
Dated this 25th day of September, 2024.

22
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2