Montell v. Colvin

Filing 23

ORDER Accepting and Adopting in full 22 Report and Recommendation. FURTHER ORDERED that 12 MOTION to Remand to Social Security is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 18 Cross MOTION To Affirm is GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/26/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***
7
8

GUY M. MONTELL,
Plantiff,

9
10
11

Case No.: 2:14-cv-00237-RFB-CWH

v.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,

12
13

Defendant.

14
15
16

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22) of the
Honorable Carl W. Hoffman, United States Magistrate Judge, entered February 13, 2015.

17

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

18

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific written

19

objections to the findings and recommendations of a Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule

20

IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to “make a de novo

21

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which

22

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object,

23

however, a district court is not required to conduct “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and

24

recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

25

1

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by March 2, 2015. No objections have been

2

filed, and thus the Court is not required to conduct any review of Judge Hoffman’s Report and

3

Recommendation. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with Judge

4

Hoffman’s recommendations that Plaintiff Guy M. Montell’s motion for reversal or remand be denied

5

and that Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin’s cross-motion to affirm be granted.

6

ORDER

7
8

For the reasons stated above,

9

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22) is ACCEPTED and

10
11
12
13
14

ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Guy M. Montell’s Motion to Reverse or Remand
(ECF No. 12) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin’s Cross-Motion to Affirm
(ECF No. 18) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

15
16

DATED this 26th day of March, 2015.

17
_____________________________
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge