Lawrence v. Colvin

Filing 22

ORDER accepting and adopting 21 Report and Recommendation, denying motion for remand/reversal, and granting 17 cross-motion to affirm. Clerk to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/11/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10
11
12
13

Case No. 3:15-cv-0098-MMD-VPC

CONNIE LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOKE

Defendant.

14
15

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke’s Report and

16

Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) (dkt. no. 21), regarding Plaintiff Connie

17

Lawrence’s motion for remand or reversal (dkt. no. 14) and Defendant Carolyn Colvin’s

18

opposition and cross motion to affirm (dkt. nos. 17, 18). Judge Cooke entered the R&R

19

on February 11, 2016. The Court allowed Plaintiff to file any objections by February 28,

20

2016 (dkt. no. 21). To date, no objections have been filed.

21

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

22

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

23

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is

24

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

25

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

26

to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue

27

that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to

4

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

5

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the

6

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an

7

objection”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then

8

the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.

9

Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to

10

which no objection was filed).

11

Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review in

12

order to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Upon review of the R&R and the records

13

in this case, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge and will adopt the R&R in full.

14

It is hereby ordered that the R&R (dkt. no. 21) is accepted and adopted.

15

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for remand/reversal (dkt. no. 14) is

16
17
18

denied.
It is further ordered that Defendant’s cross-motion to affirm (dkt. no. 17) is
granted.

19

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case

20

DATED THIS 11th day of April 2016.

21
22

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2