Lago v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 *** 10 CHERYL LAGO, Case No. 3:15-cv-00603-MMD-WGC 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB 14 Defendant. 15 16 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 17 Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 20) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff Cheryl Lago’s Motion 18 for Reversal and/or Remand (ECF No. 15) and Defendant Carolyn Colvin’s Cross Motion 19 to Affirm (ECF No. 18). The Magistrate judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion for 20 Reversal and/or Remand and granting Defendant’s Cross Motion to Affirm. Plaintiff, who 21 is proceeding pro se, had until October 6, 2016, to object to the R&R. To date, no 22 objection has been filed. 23 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 24 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 25 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 26 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 27 recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails 28 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). 1 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 2 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See 3 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard 4 of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to 5 which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 6 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the 7 view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an 8 objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then 9 the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. 10 Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to 11 which no objection was filed). 12 Nevertheless, considering Lago’s pro se status, this Court finds it appropriate to 13 engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s 14 R&R. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) decision 15 and found it was supported by substantial evidence in the record. (ECF No. 20 at 7-14.) 16 Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the 17 Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full. 18 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and 19 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 20) be accepted and 20 adopted in its entirety. It is ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reversal and/or Remand 21 (ECF No. 15) is denied and Defendant’s Cross Motion to Affirm (ECF No. 18) is granted. 22 The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close 23 24 this case. DATED THIS 10th day of October 2017. 25 26 27 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 2

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?