Bushhead v. Astrue

Filing 21

ORDER Adopting 20 Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 12 Plaintiff's Motion to remand to Social Security Administration is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case be remanded back to the agency consistent with the terms in the report and recommendation and stipulation. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/25/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8

ELLIOTT BUSHHEAD,

9
10
11

2:12-CV-921 JCM (VCF)

Plaintiff(s),
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

12
Defendant(s).

13
14
15

ORDER

16
17

Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to remand to the Social Security
Administration. (Doc. # 12).

18
19

Also before the court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ferenbach (Doc.
# 20).

20

Plaintiff field a motion to remand to remand to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”).

21

Thereafter, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order for remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

22

405(g), sentence four. (Doc. # 15). The parties stipulate that on remand, the administrative law

23

judge (“ALJ”) will “be directed to issue a partially favorable decision based on a light residual

24

function capacity, with an established onset date of May 7, 2010 . . . .” (Id.). Pursuant to sentence

25

four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), “[t]he court shall have the power to enter, upon the pleadings and

26

transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the

27

Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a hearing.”

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

The magistrate judge held a hearing on the stipulation. (See doc. # 19). After holding a

2

hearing on the stipulation, the magistrate judge recommends that this court “enter a final judgment

3

reversing the Commissioner’s decision and remanding, without a hearing, with instructions to the

4

ALJ to issue a partially favorable decision based on a light residual function capacity, with an

5

established onset date of May 7, 2010.” (Doc. # 20, report and recommendation).

6

This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

7

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects

8

to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo

9

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

10

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

11

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all

12

. . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

13

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate

14

judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v.

15

Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the

16

district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see

17

also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s

18

decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any

19

issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s

20

recommendation, then this court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g.,

21

Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation

22

to which no objection was filed).

23

Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine

24

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation

25

and underlying briefs, this court finds good cause appears to adopt the magistrate’s findings in full.

26

...

27

...

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion to

3

remand to the Social Security Administration (doc. # 12) be, and the same hereby, is DENIED as

4

moot.

5
6
7
8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Ferenbach (doc. # 20) be, and the same hereby, is ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case be remanded back to the agency consistent with
the terms in the report and recommendation and stipulation.
DATED April 25, 2013.

10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-