Hughes v. Commissioner Of Social Security Adm.

Filing 19

ORDER Adopting in its entirety 17 Report and Recommendation.Denying 14 Motion to Remand. Granting 15 Commissioner's Cross-Motion to Affirm. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/1/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

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

MARGARET A. HUGHES,

9
10
11

2:12-CV-1787 JCM (CWH)

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

12
Defendant(s).

13
14
15

ORDER

16
17

Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman.
(Doc. # 17). No objections have been filed even though the deadline has passed.

18

Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand this action to the Social Security Administration. (Doc.

19

# 14). In response, defendant requested that plaintiff’s motion be denied and that the court grant

20

summary judgment in her favor. (Doc. # 15). The magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s

21

motion be denied, and that the court grant defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc.

22

# 17).

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

to which no objection was filed).

13

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

14

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

15

and underlying briefs, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate judge’s findings

16

in full.

17

Accordingly,

18

IT IS HEREBY, ORDERED, AND DECREED that the report and recommendation of

19
20
21
22
23
24

Magistrate Judge Hoffman (doc. # 17) are ADOPTED in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand this action to the Social
Security Administration (doc. # 14) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (doc. #
15) is GRANTED. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
DATED April 1, 2014.

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

-2-