Pitts v. Astrue

Filing 31

ORDER Adopting in its entirety Magistrate Judge Leen's 28 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's 21 Motion to Remand to Social Security Administration is Denied. Defendant's 27 Cross-Motion to Affirm is Granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/7/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 GARETH E. PITTS, 9 10 11 12 13 2:12-CV-1109 JCM (PAL) Plaintiff(s), v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant(s). 14 15 ORDER 16 Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Leen. 17 (Doc. # 28). No objections have been filed even though the deadline for filing objections has passed. 18 Upon considering plaintiff Gareth E. Pitts’ motion to remand to the Social Security 19 Administration, (doc. # 21), and defendant Michael J. Astrue’s cross-motion to affirm, (doc. # 27), 20 Magistrate Judge Leen recommended that the former be denied and the latter be granted. 21 This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to 23 a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo 24 determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 25 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 26 Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all 27 . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate 2 judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. 3 Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the 4 district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see 5 also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s 6 decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any 7 issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s 8 recommendation, then this court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., 9 Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation 10 to which no objection was filed). 11 Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine 12 whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation 13 and underlying briefs, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate judge’s findings 14 in full. 15 Accordingly, 16 IT IS HEREBY, ORDERED, AND DECREED that the report and recommendation of 17 Magistrate Judge Leen (doc. # 28) are ADOPTED in their entirety. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand (doc. # 21) is DENIED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s cross-motion to affirm (doc. # 27) is 20 21 GRANTED. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. DATED May 7, 2014. 22 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?