Gibson v. Colvin

Filing 32

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 31 the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 25 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 26 Defendant's Cross-Motion to Affirm the Agency Decision is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration. The Clerk is instructed to close the case. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/10/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
DELORIS A. GIBSON,
4
5
6
7
8

Plaintiff,
vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01885-GMN-BNW
ORDER

10
11

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States

12

Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler, (ECF No. 31), which recommends that Plaintiff Deloris

13

Gibson’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 25), be granted. The R&R further recommends that

14

Defendant Commissioner Nancy Berryhill’s Cross-Motion to Affirm the Agency Decision,

15

(ECF No. 26), be denied.

16

A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a

17

United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);

18

D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo

19

determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject,

20

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.

21

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is

22

not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an

23

objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized

24

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

25

where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

Page 1 of 2

1
2

1122 (9th Cir. 2003).
Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so, August 15, 2019, has passed.

3

(Min. Order, ECF No. 31).

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 31), is

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 25), is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Cross-Motion to Affirm the Agency
Decision, (ECF No. 26), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Social Security
Administration.
The Clerk is instructed to close the case.

14
15

10
DATED this _____ day of September, 2019.

16
17
18

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2