Simpson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 27

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 24 the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Reversal and/or Remand is GRANTED and that 19 the Commissioner's Cross-Motion to Affirm is DENIED. See Order for further specifications. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/20/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
DEBORAH M. SIMPSON,
4
5
6
7
8

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

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:17-cv-00898-GMN-EJY
ORDER

10
11

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable United

12

States Magistrate Judge George Foley, (ECF No. 24), which states that Plaintiff Deborah M.

13

Simpson’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reversal and/or Remand, (ECF No. 18), should be granted

14

and that the Commissioner’s Cross-Motion to Affirm, (ECF No. 19), should be denied.

15

Further, the Report and Recommendation states that this matter should be “remanded to the

16

agency for further hearing and a determination of whether Plaintiff was disabled within the

17

meaning of the Social Security Act at any time between August 18, 2012 and, December 31,

18

2014.” (R. & R. 23:9–11, ECF No. 24).

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

Page 1 of 2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

1122 (9th Cir. 2003).

5

Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed.

6

Accordingly,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 24), is

8
9

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reversal and/or Remand,

10

(ECF No. 18), is GRANTED and that the Commissioner’s Cross-Motion to Affirm, (ECF No.

11

19), is DENIED.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the agency for further

13

hearing and a determination of whether Plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the Social

14

Security Act at any time between August 18, 2012 and, December 31, 2014.

15

DATED this 20 day of August, 2019.
___

16
17
18

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

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2