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)

Download PDF
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

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?