Gray Matheny v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 26

ORDER that accepts and adopts in full ECF No. 25 Report and Recommendation; ECF No. 22 plaintiff's Motion for Remand or Reversal is denied; ECF No. 23 defendant's Cross-Motion to Affirm is granted; clerk directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant and close the case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA *** Case No. 3:17-cv-00016-MMD-VPC 8 9 KATHY R. GRAY MATHENY, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOKE Defendant. 13 14 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke’s Report and 15 Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 25), regarding Plaintiff Kathy R. Grany Matheny’s 16 motion for reversal and/or remand (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) (ECF No. 22) and Defendant’s 17 cross-motion to affirm (“Defendant’s Motion”) (ECF No. 23). The Magistrate Judge 18 recommended denying Plaintiff’s Motion and granting Defendant’s Motion. (ECF No. 25) 19 Plaintiff had until December 20, 2017, to file any objection. To date, no objection has been 20 filed. 21 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 23 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 24 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 25 recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails 26 to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 27 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, 28 the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate 1 judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United 2 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 3 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 4 objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 5 Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 6 district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection”). 7 Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may 8 accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 9 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection 10 was filed). 11 Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review in order 12 to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Upon review of the R&R and the records in this 13 case, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge and adopts the R&R in full. 14 It is hereby ordered that the R&R (ECF No. 25) is accepted and adopted in full. 15 Plaintiff’s motion for remand or reversal (ECF No. 22) is denied and defendant’s cross- 16 motion to affirm (ECF No. 23) is granted. 17 The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case. 18 DATED THIS 9th day of January 2018. 19 20 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 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?