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)

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