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)

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-