Nelson v. Colvin

Filing 30

ORDER denying 20 Motion to Remand ; ORDER granting 24 Countermotion to Affirm the Agency Decision; ORDER adopting 29 Report and Recommendation; Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/13/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

DESIREE NELSON,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:16-CV-2402 JCM (CWH)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation

14

(“R&R”) in the matter of Nelson v. Colvin, case number 2:16-cv-02402-JCM-CWH. (ECF No.

15

29). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

16

Also before the court is plaintiff Desiree Nelson’s (“plaintiff”) motion to remand to

17

Social Security Administration. (ECF No. 20). Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin (“defendant”)

18

filed a response (ECF No. 25) to which plaintiff replied. (ECF No. 28).

19
20

Also before the court is defendant’s countermotion to affirm. (ECF No. 24). Plaintiff has
not filed a response, and the time to do so has passed.

21

Magistrate Judge Hoffman recommends that plaintiff’s motion to remand be denied, as

22

the ALJ set forth valid reasons, supported by clear and convincing evidence, to arrive at his

23

decision.

24

defendant’s countermotion to affirm be granted. Id.

(ECF No. 29).

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Hoffman also recommends that

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

2

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

3

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at

4

all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

5

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

6

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United

7

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review

8

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

9

objections were made).

10

Nevertheless, this court conducted a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the

11

recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation and attendant

12

circumstances, this court finds good cause appears to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings in

13

full.

14

Accordingly,

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20

Hoffman’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 29) are ADOPTED in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand to social security
administration (ECF No. 20) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to affirm (ECF No. 24) be, and the
same hereby is, GRANTED.

21

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

22

DATED March 13, 2019.

23
24

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-