Starkey v. Colvin

Filing 20

ORDER Adopting 19 Report and Recommendation. FURTHER ORDERED that 15 Motion for Reversal or Remand is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 16 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 2/2/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

NANCY E. STARKEY,

Case No. 2:14-CV-1481 JCM (NJK)

8
9
10

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court are Magistrate Judge Nancy Koppe’s report and

14

recommendation. (Doc. # 19). No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed,

15

and the time for doing so has passed.

16

This case arises from the disputed denial of a claim for disability benefits by the Social

17

Security Administration (“SSA”). Plaintiff Nancy Starkey filed an application for disability

18

benefits with the SSA on February 4, 2011. (Doc. # 19 at 5). After the claim was denied twice,

19

plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to review the denial. (Id.)

20

The ALJ did not find in plaintiff’s favor. (Id.) Plaintiff then requested a review of the denial before

21

an appeals council, which denied that request on June 16, 2014. (Id.)

22

On September 12, 2014, plaintiff initiated this case by filing a complaint for judicial review

23

of a final decision by the commissioner of social security, requesting that the court review the

24

ALJ’s decision in the matter. (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff filed a motion for reversal or remand to the

25

agency. (Doc. # 15). The commissioner defendant filed a response in opposition and a cross-

26

motion to affirm. (Doc. ## 16, 17). The action was referred by the undersigned district judge to

27

Judge Koppe for a report of findings and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) and

28

Local Rule IB 1-4.

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

6

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

7

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

8

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)

13

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

14

not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no

15

objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then this court may accept the recommendation

16

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

17

magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed).

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

magistrate judge’s findings in full.

22

Accordingly,

23

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge Nancy

24

Koppe’s report and recommendation (doc. # 19) be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED in their

25

entirety.

26
27

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Nancy Starkey’s motion for reversal or remand
(doc. # 15) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Carolyn Colvin, Commissioner of Social

2

Security’s cross-motion to affirm (doc. # 16) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The clerk is

3

instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

4
5
6

DATED February 2, 2016.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-