Williams v. Social Security Administration

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Macdonald's Report and Recommendation is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this action is dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk shall enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Raner C Collins on 6/28/13. (BAC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Amber Lynn Williams,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Social Security Administration,
13
Defendant.
14

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

No. CV 13-76-TUC-RCC
ORDER

15
16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendant Social Security

17

Administration (“SSA”), seeking a review of the Appeals Council for the SSA decision

18

denying Plaintiff’s Request for Review of the Administrative Law Judge’s unfavorable

19

decision. Also before the Court is Magistrate Judge Bruce Macdonald’s Report and

20

Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 4). The Court accepts and adopts the R&R (Doc. 10) as the

21

findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court and will dismiss this case without

22

prejudice.

23

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on February 4, 2013. (Doc. 1) On February 15, 2013, the

24

Court informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff had named the wrong defendant in the Complaint.

25

(Doc. 6) The Court gave Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint. Plaintiff did not file an

26

amended complaint within the allotted time. Plaintiff also failed to respond to the Court’s

27

OSC (Doc. 8) and failed to appear at the Court’s scheduled show cause hearing (Doc. 9).

28

Magistrate Judge Macdonald issued a R&R recommending that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed

1

without prejudice. (Doc. 10) Plaintiff did not file a response to the R&R within the allotted

2

time.

3

The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 of

4

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U .S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may

5

“accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return

6

the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §

7

636(b)(1).

8

Where the parties object to a R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de

9

novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.

10

§ 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).

11

When no objection is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v.

12

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

13

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). Therefore to the extent that no objection has been

14

made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187

15

(9th Cir.1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see

16

also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist.

17

Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need

18

only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

19

recommendation).

20

The Court will not disturb a Magistrate Judge's Order unless his factual findings are

21

clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

22

“[T]he magistrate judge's decision ... is entitled to great deference by the district court.”

23

United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.2001). A failure to raise an

24

objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s findings of fact. Turner v. Duncan,

25

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is

26

a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.”

27

Id. (internal citations omitted).

28

Plaintiff has filed no objections to the R&R, which relieves the Court of its obligation
-2-

1

to review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003); Thomas

2

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] does

3

not ... require any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”);

4

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate

5

judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”). This Court considers the R&R to

6

be thorough and well-reasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the record, the Court

7

will ADOPT the R&R of Magistrate Judge Macdonald (Doc. 10).

8

Accordingly,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Macdonald Report and

10

Recommendation (Doc. 10) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact

11

and conclusions of law by this Court.

12
13
14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this action is dismissed without prejudice, and the
Clerk shall enter judgment and close this case.
DATED this 28th day of June, 2013.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-