Garst v. Colvin

Filing 18

ORDERED, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 17 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. It is further ordered that plaintiff's motion for remand or reversal (ECF No. 9 ) is denied. It is further ordered that defendant's cross-motion to affirm (ECF No. 15 ) is granted. It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/31/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

JAMES GARST,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 3:16-cv-00495-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOKE

Defendant.

14
15

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

16

Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 17) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiffs’ motion for reversal

17

and/or remand (ECF No. 9), and defendant’s cross-motion to affirm (ECF No. 15). The

18

Court allowed plaintiff until August 15, 2017, to file an objection. (See ECF No. 17.) To

19

date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

was filed).

10

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

11

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R and

12

underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the Magistrate Judge’s

13

R&R in full.

14

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation

15

of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 17) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

16

It is further ordered that plaintiff’s motion for remand or reversal (ECF No. 9) is

17

denied.

18

It is further ordered that defendant’s cross-motion to affirm (ECF No. 15) is granted.

19

It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment and close this case.

20

DATED THIS 31st day of August 2017.

21
22
23

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2