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