Price v. Berryhill

Filing 27

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 26 Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's report and recommendation be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 16 plaintiff's motion to remand be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 23 defendant's cross motion 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 1/22/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

TINISHA PRICE,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:17-CV-755 JCM (VCF)
ORDER

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

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

14

(ECF No. 26). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections has since

15

passed.

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

objections were made).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1
2

Magistrate Judge Ferenbach recommended plaintiff’s motion for reversal and/or remand
be denied, and that defendant’s cross-motion to affirm be granted. (ECF No. 26).

3

Plaintiff has not objected to the report and recommendation. Nevertheless, this court finds

4

it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the recommendation of

5

the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying briefs, the court finds

6

that good cause appears to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings.

7

Accordingly,

8

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

9

Ferenbach’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 26) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in

10
11
12
13
14

its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 16) be, and the
same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s cross motion to affirm (ECF No. 23) be, and
the same hereby is, GRANTED.

15

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

16

DATED January 22, 2018.

17
18

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-