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)

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-