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)

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-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

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?