Trillo v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER that Magistrate Judge Hoffman's 20 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. Trillo's 17 Motion to Remand is DENIED. The Social Security Commissioner's 18 Motion to Affirm the Agency Decision is GRANTED. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/25/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

LISA MARIE TRILLO-CORONA,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:17-CV-129 JCM (CWH)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman’s report and

14

recommendation (“R&R”) in the matter of Trillo v. Colvin, case number 2:17-cv-00129-JCM-

15

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

16

Magistrate Judge Hoffman notes in his report and recommendation that the

17

administrative law judge (“ALJ”) correctly held that plaintiff was not disabled for disability

18

insurance benefits purposes because there are jobs that plaintiff is able to perform. (ECF No.

19

20). The magistrate judge also notes that the ALJ incorrectly identified some of those jobs. Id.

20

Nevertheless, because the misidentification was a harmless error, the magistrate judge

21

recommends denying plaintiff Lisa Marie Trillo’s motion to remand and granting the social

22

security commissioner’s motion to affirm the agency decision. Id.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

objections were made).

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

Accordingly,

12

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

13

Hoffman’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 20) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in

14

its entirety.

15
16
17
18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Trillo’s motion to remand (ECF No. 17) be, and the
same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the social security commissioner’s motion to affirm the
agency decision (ECF No. 18) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

19

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

20

DATED June 25, 2019.

21
22

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-