Muro v. Colvin
ORDER accepting and adopting Report and Recommendations ECF No. 21 . Plaintiff's Motion to Remand ECF No. 11 is denied. Defendant's Cross-Motion to Affirm ECF No. 18 is granted. Clerk directed to enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 02/15/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 3:16-cv-00090-MMD-VPC
ANTONIO V. MURO,
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 21), regarding plaintiff’s motion to remand or reversal
(ECF No. 12) and defendant’s cross motion to affirm. Plaintiff had until February 8, 2017
to object to the R&R. (ECF No. 21.) 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
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review in order
to determine whether to adopt the R&R. The R&R finds that the ALJ did not err in finding
that Plaintiff’s disability ended on February 5, 2013, nor did the ALJ err considering the
opinions of Dr. Barton and Nurse Practitioner Drew, or in assessing Plaintiff’s credibility.
The R&R thus recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for remand (ECF No.
12) and grant defendant’s cross motion to affirm (ECF No. 18). Upon review of the R&R
and the records in this case, the Court determines that it is appropriate to adopt the R&R
It is hereby ordered that the R&R (ECF No. 21) is accepted and adopted. Plaintiff’s
motion to remand (ECF No. 11) is denied and defendant’s cross-motion to affirm (ECF
No. 18) is granted.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
DATED THIS 15th day of February 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?