Scarlett v. Colvin
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 3:16-cv-00320-MMD-WGC
MICHAEL PAUL SCARLETT,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 18), regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Reversal and/or
Remand (ECF No. 13, 14 (brief)) and Defendant Commissioner’s Cross-Motion to affirm
and opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reversal and Remand (ECF No. 16). The Court
allowed Plaintiff to file an objection by July 31, 2017 (ECF No. 18). 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 assessing
Plaintiff’s mental limitations and in assigning only some weight to opinion of the Social Security
Administration’s consultative examining physician (Dr. Corson). (ECF No 18.) Upon review
of the R&R and the records in this case, the Court finds good cause to adopt the R&R in
It is therefore ordered that the R&R (ECF No. 18) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reversal and/or Remand (ECF No.
13) is denied.
It is further ordered that The Commissioner’s Cross-Motion to Affirm (ECF No. 16)
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment consistent with this Order and close this
DATED THIS 14th day of August 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?