Scarlett v. Colvin

Filing 19

ORDER that the Report and Recommendation ECF No. 18 is accepted and adopted in full; Plaintiff's Motion for Reversal and/or Remand ECF No. 13 is denied; The Commissioner's Cross-Motion to Affirm ECF No. 16 is granted; Clerk directed to enter judgment consistent with this Order and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 08/14/2017. (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-00320-MMD-WGC

MICHAEL PAUL SCARLETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

Defendant.

14
15
16

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb’s Report and

17

Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 18), regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Reversal and/or

18

Remand (ECF No. 13, 14 (brief)) and Defendant Commissioner’s Cross-Motion to affirm

19

and opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reversal and Remand (ECF No. 16). The Court

20

allowed Plaintiff to file an objection by July 31, 2017 (ECF No. 18). To date, no objection

21

has been filed.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

was filed).

12

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

13

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

14

Plaintiff’s mental limitations and in assigning only some weight to opinion of the Social Security

15

Administration’s consultative examining physician (Dr. Corson). (ECF No 18.) Upon review

16

of the R&R and the records in this case, the Court finds good cause to adopt the R&R in

17

full.

18

It is therefore ordered that the R&R (ECF No. 18) is accepted and adopted in full.

19

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reversal and/or Remand (ECF No.

20

13) is denied.
It is further ordered that The Commissioner’s Cross-Motion to Affirm (ECF No. 16)

21
22

is granted.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment consistent with this Order and close this

23
24
25

case.
DATED THIS 14th day of August 2017.

26
27

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

2