Rael v. Berryhill

Filing 23

ORDER denying 15 Motion to Remand ; ORDER granting 20 Cross-Motion to Affirm; ORDER adopting 22 Report and Recommendation; Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/20/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
JERRI L. RAEL,
4
5
6
7
8
9

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:17-cv-0947-GMN-VCF
ORDER

10
11

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

12

Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, (ECF No. 22), which recommends that Plaintiff Jerri L.

13

Rael’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Motion for Reversal and/or Remand, (ECF No. 15), be denied. Judge

14

Ferenbach further recommends that Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill’s (“Commissioner’s”)

15

Cross-Motion to Affirm, (ECF No. 20), be granted.

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

1122 (9th Cir. 2003).

2

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

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No.22), is

5
6
7
8
9
10

ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reversal and/or Remand,
(ECF No. 15), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Cross-Motion to Affirm, (ECF
No. 20), is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case.

11
12

20
DATED this ___ day of March, 2018.

13
14
15

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

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2