Daniel v. Colvin

Filing 27

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 26 Magistrate Judge Leen's report and recommendation be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 17 plaintiff's motion to remand be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 18 the commissioner's crossmotion to affirm be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/5/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 LENA J. DANIEL, 8 9 10 Case No. 2:14-CV-1728 JCM (PAL) Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Leen’s report and recommendation 14 (“R&R”), regarding plaintiff Lena J. Daniel’s (“plaintiff”) motion to remand to the Social Security 15 Administration (ECF No. 17) and defendant Carolyn W. Colvin’s (the “commissioner”) 16 crossmotion to affirm (ECF No. 18). (ECF No. 26). No objections have been filed, and the 17 deadline for filing objections has since passed. 18 This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 19 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects 20 to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo 21 determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 22 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 23 Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at 24 all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 25 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 26 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United 27 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 2 objections were made). 3 Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine 4 whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. 5 recommendation and underlying briefs, the court finds that good cause appears to ADOPT the 6 magistrate judge’s findings. 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge Leen’s 9 10 11 12 13 Upon reviewing the report and recommendation (ECF No. 26) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 17) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the commissioner’s crossmotion to affirm (ECF No. 18) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 14 The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 15 DATED July 5, 2017. 16 17 __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?