Naoumi v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 35

ORDER that 34 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED in their entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 24 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 28 Defendant's Cross-motion to affirm is GRANTED. The clerk is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/24/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

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

ROY E. NAOUMI,

9
10
11

2:12-CV-1140 JCM (PAL)

Plaintiff(s),
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

12
13

Defendant(s).

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Leen.

17

(Doc. # 34). No objections have been filed even though the deadline for filing objections has passed.

18

Upon considering plaintiff Roy E. Naoumi’s motion for summary judgment, (doc. # 24), and

19

defendant Michael J. Astrue’s cross-motion to affirm, (doc. # 28), Magistrate Judge Leen

20

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, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and

17
18
19
20
21
22

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Leen (doc. # 34) are ADOPTED in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (doc. # 24) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s cross-motion to affirm (doc. # 28) is
GRANTED. The clerk is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
DATED July 24, 2014.

23
24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-