Lago v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb ECF No. 20 ) be accepted and adopted in its entirety; Plaintiff's Motion for Reversal and/or Remand ECF No. 15 is denied; Defendant's Cross Motion to Affirm ECF No. 18 is granted; Clerk directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 3:15-cv-00603-MMD-WGC
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
WILLIAM G. COBB
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 20) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff Cheryl Lago’s Motion
for Reversal and/or Remand (ECF No. 15) and Defendant Carolyn Colvin’s Cross Motion
to Affirm (ECF No. 18). The Magistrate judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reversal and/or Remand and granting Defendant’s Cross Motion to Affirm. Plaintiff, who
is proceeding pro se, had until October 6, 2016, to object to the R&R. To date, no
objection has been filed.
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails
to object, 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.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then
the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.
Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to
which no objection was filed).
Nevertheless, considering Lago’s pro se status, this Court finds it appropriate to
engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s
R&R. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) decision
and found it was supported by substantial evidence in the record. (ECF No. 20 at 7-14.)
Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the
Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 20) be accepted and
adopted in its entirety. It is ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reversal and/or Remand
(ECF No. 15) is denied and Defendant’s Cross Motion to Affirm (ECF No. 18) is granted.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close
DATED THIS 10th day of October 2017.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES 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?