Noland v. Social Security Disability
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 6 Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's R&R be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/12/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:17-CV-2743 JCM (VCF)
SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY,
Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s report and recommendation
(R&R) to dismiss plaintiff Laura Noland’s complaint with prejudice. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff has
not filed a response, and the time for doing so has since passed.
This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party fails to object to a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, however, the court is not required to conduct “any
review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review
a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United
States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review
employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no
objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)
(reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are
not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”).
Plaintiff did not file a timely objection to the report and recommendation. However, as
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
to determine whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. §
An individual “may obtain a review of” a “final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security” in “a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing . . . of notice of such
decision.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
On November 3, 2017, Judge Ferenbach dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to
amend, noting that “Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state (1) there was a final decision by the
Commissioner and (2) this action was brought within the appropriate time.” (ECF No. 3).
Plaintiff’s amended complaint states that the Social Security Appeals Panel denied her request for
review on December 22, 2015. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff brought this action almost two years later,
on October 31, 2017. (ECF No. 1). Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge
Ferenbach’s R&R (ECF No. 6) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety.
The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
DATED April 12, 2018.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?