Connors v. Colvin
Filing
27
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 26 Magistrate Judge Koppe's report and recommendation be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 22 plaintiff Lori Connors's motion to reman d be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 24 defendant Carolyn Colvin'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 1/12/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
LORI CONNORS,
8
9
10
11
Case No. 2:15-CV-2379 JCM (NJK)
Plaintiff(s),
ORDER
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant(s).
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation
(“R&R”), regarding plaintiff Lori Connors’s (“plaintiff”) motion to remand to the Social Security
Administration (ECF No. 22) and defendant Carolyn Colvin’s (the “commissioner”) crossmotion
to affirm (ECF No. 24). (ECF No. 26). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing
objections has since passed.
On October 1, 2013, plaintiff filed applications for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income, alleging that she became disabled on August 1, 2013. The
commissioner denied plaintiff’s applications initially and on reconsideration.
Thereafter, plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), which
convened on April 2, 2015. The ALJ overseeing the case found plaintiff not disabled as defined
by the Social Security Act. The ALJ’s decision became final on October 8, 2015, when the appeals
council denied plaintiff’s request for review.
On December 14, 2015, plaintiff commenced the underlying action seeking judicial review
of the ALJ’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). (ECF No. 1). On April 4,
2016, the commissioner filed an answer. (ECF No. 16).
1
Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to the Social Security
2
Administration (ECF No. 22), to which the commissioner responded (ECF No. 25). In addition,
3
the commissioner filed a crossmotion to affirm. (ECF No. 24).
4
In the instant R&R, Magistrate Judge Koppe recommends that plaintiff’s motion to remand
5
be denied and that the commissioner’s crossmotion to affirm be granted. (ECF No. 26). After
6
reviewing the administrative record as a whole and weighing the evidence, the magistrate found
7
that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and that the ALJ
8
did not commit legal error. (ECF No. 26).
9
This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
10
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects
11
to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo
12
determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”
13
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
14
Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at
15
all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
16
(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
17
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United
18
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review
19
employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no
20
objections were made).
21
Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine
22
whether to adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Koppe.
23
recommendation and underlying briefs, the court finds that good cause appears to ADOPT the
24
magistrate judge’s findings.
25
Accordingly,
26
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge
27
Koppe’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 26) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its
28
entirety.
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
Upon reviewing the
1
2
3
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Lori Connors’s motion to remand (ECF No. 22)
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Carolyn Colvin’s crossmotion to affirm (ECF
No. 24) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
5
The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
6
DATED January 12, 2017.
7
8
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
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?