Veater v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 25 Judge Ferenbach's R&R be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 18 plaintiff's motion to remand be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERE D that 21 the Acting Commissioner's motion to affirm be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The clerk is instructed to enter judgment and close the case accordingly. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/2/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

NICOLE P. VEATER,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:17-CV-1505 JCM (VCF)
ORDER

v.
NANCY A BERRYHILL,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is plaintiff Nicole Veater’s (“plaintiff”) motion to remand to

14

Social Security. (ECF No. 18). Nancy A. Berryhill (the “Acting Commissioner”) filed a

15

countermotion to affirm (ECF No. 21), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 22).

16

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

17

(“R&R”) denying plaintiff’s motion for remand and granting the Acting Commissioner’s motion

18

to affirm. (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff did not file an objection to the R&R, and the time to do so has

19

passed.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

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

2

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

3

objections were made).

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

full.

8

Accordingly,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Ferenbach’s R&R

10
11
12
13
14

(ECF No. 25) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 18) be, and the
same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Acting Commissioner’s motion to affirm (ECF No.
21) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

15

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

16

DATED January 2, 2020.

17
18

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-2-