Muro v. Colvin

Filing 22

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10
11
12
13

Case No. 3:16-cv-00090-MMD-VPC

ANTONIO V. MURO,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

14
15

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

16

Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 21), regarding plaintiff’s motion to remand or reversal

17

(ECF No. 12) and defendant’s cross motion to affirm. Plaintiff had until February 8, 2017

18

to object to the R&R. (ECF No. 21.) To date, no objection has been filed.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

2

objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D.

3

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

4

district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection”).

5

Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may

6

accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226

7

(accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection

8

was filed).

9

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

10

to determine whether to adopt the R&R. The R&R finds that the ALJ did not err in finding

11

that Plaintiff’s disability ended on February 5, 2013, nor did the ALJ err considering the

12

opinions of Dr. Barton and Nurse Practitioner Drew, or in assessing Plaintiff’s credibility.

13

The R&R thus recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for remand (ECF No.

14

12) and grant defendant’s cross motion to affirm (ECF No. 18). Upon review of the R&R

15

and the records in this case, the Court determines that it is appropriate to adopt the R&R

16

in full.

17

It is hereby ordered that the R&R (ECF No. 21) is accepted and adopted. Plaintiff’s

18

motion to remand (ECF No. 11) is denied and defendant’s cross-motion to affirm (ECF

19

No. 18) is granted.

20

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case.

21

DATED THIS 15th day of February 2017.

22
23

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2