Gill v. Colvin

Filing 27

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 26 the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED in their entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 15 plaintiff's motion for reversal or r emand be, and the same hereby is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 23 the commissioner's cross-motion to affirm be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/22/17. (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 TAMMY A. GILL, 8 9 10 Case No. 2:15-CV-553 JCM (CWH) Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. CAROLYN M. COLVIN, 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation (ECF 14 No. 26) that this court deny plaintiff’s motion for reversal or remand (ECF No. 15) and grant the 15 social security commissioner’s cross-motion to affirm. (ECF No. 23). No timely objections were 16 filed by the parties. 17 This 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). If a party fails to object to a 19 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, however, the court is not required to conduct “any 20 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 21 149 (1985). 22 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 23 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United 24 States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 25 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 26 objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) 27 (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are 28 not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 Therefore, this court will adopt the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and 4 recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman (ECF No. 26) be, and the same hereby are, 5 ADOPTED in their entirety. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reversal or remand (ECF No. 15) be, and the same hereby is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the commissioner’s cross-motion to affirm (ECF No. 23) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. DATED May 22, 2017. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 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?