Walker-Goggins v. Social Security Administration

Filing 13

ORDER adopting ECF No. 8 Report and Recommendation; dismissing ECF No. 1 -1 Complaint; and directing clerk to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/17/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

ANNETTE WALKER-GOGGINS,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:15-CV-1839 JCM (CWH)
ORDER

v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge

14

Hoffman. (ECF No. 8). Pro se plaintiff Annette Walker-Goggins filed an “appeal/ bound over to

15

Supreme Court” which was docketed as an objection to the report and recommendation. (ECF No.

16

11).

17

Magistrate Judge Hoffman recommended that plaintiff be allowed to proceed in forma

18

pauperis but that defendant’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Magistrate Judge Hoffman

19

found that plaintiff’s complaint contains “incoherent, fanciful, and delusional claims and

20

descriptions [that] do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (ECF No. 8).

21

Plaintiff’s “objection” does not object to any of the magistrate judge’s findings. Plaintiff

22

simply lists “appealed” next to the motions that Magistrate Judge Hoffman recommends denying

23

after concluding that plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous. (ECF. No. 11).

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is

28

made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

However, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not

2

the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit

3

has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and

4

recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d

5

1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the district court when

6

reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v.

7

Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

8

Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is

9

not the subject of an objection.”).

Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s

10

recommendation, then this court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g.,

11

Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s

12

recommendation to which no objection was filed).

13

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

14

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

Upon reviewing the

15

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

16

judge’s findings in full.

17

Accordingly,

18

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the report and

19
20
21

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman, (ECF No. 8), are ADOPTED in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is DISMISSED with
prejudice.

22

The clerk is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

23

DATED May 17, 2016.

24
25

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-