Yarborough v. Berryhill

Filing 29

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 28 Magistrate Judge Koppe's report and recommendation are ADOPTED in their entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 22 plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED, and that this matter is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Koppe's report and recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 25 the commissioner's countermotion to affirm is DENIED. The clerk of court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/11/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

FELICIA R. YARBOROUGH,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:17-CV-2823 JCM (NJK)
ORDER

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

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

14

(“R&R”) in the matter of Yarborough v. Berryhill, case number 2:17-cv-02823-JCM-NJK. (ECF

15

No. 28). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

16

Upon considering plaintiff’s motion for reversal and/or remand to the Social Security

17

Administration (ECF No. 22) and the commissioner’s countermotion to affirm (ECF No. 25),

18

Magistrate Judge Koppe concluded that the administrative law judge’s own factual findings did

19

not comport with her ruling that plaintiff is able to engage in “light work,” pursuant to 20 C.F.R.

20

§ 416.967(b). (ECF No. 28 at 9–10). Thus, Magistrate Judge Koppe recommended plaintiff’s

21

motion to remand be granted, and the commissioner’s countermotion to affirm be denied. Id. at

22

13.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

objections were made).

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s

13

report and recommendation (ECF No. 28) are ADOPTED in their entirety.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 22) is

15

GRANTED, and that this matter is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further

16

administrative proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the commissioner’s countermotion to affirm (ECF No.

18

25) is DENIED.

19

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

20

DATED October 11, 2018.

21
22

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-