Jones v. Colvin

Filing 28

ORDER adopting 27 Report and Recommendations; denying 24 Motion to Remand to Social Security Administration; granting 25 Motion to affirm. The clerk is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/15/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

FREDDIE JONES,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff(s),

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant(s).
Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Koppe.

13

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

ORDER

v.

12

14

Case No. 2:13-CV-268 JCM (NJK)

(Doc. # 27). No objections have been filed even though the deadline for filing objections has
passed.
Upon reviewing plaintiff Freddie Jones’s (hereinafter “plaintiff”) motion for reversal or
remand, (doc. # 24), and defendant Carolyn W. Colvin’s (hereinafter “defendant”) cross-motion
to affirm, (doc. # 25), Judge Koppe recommended that the former be denied and the latter be
granted. (Doc. # 27).
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). 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

1

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

2

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

3

objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz.

4

2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district

5

courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if

6

there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then this court may accept the

7

recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting,

8

without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed).

9

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

10

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

Upon reviewing the

11

recommendation and underlying briefs, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the

12

magistrate judge’s findings in full.

13

Accordingly,

14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and

15
16
17

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Koppe, (doc. # 27), are ADOPTED in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reversal or remand, (doc. # 24),
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s cross-motion to affirm, (doc. # 25), be,

19

and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The clerk is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and

20

close the case.

21
22
23

DATED October 15, 2014.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-