Gray Matheny v. Commissioner of Social Security
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 3:17-cv-00016-MMD-VPC
KATHY R. GRAY MATHENY,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
VALERIE P. COOKE
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 25), regarding Plaintiff Kathy R. Grany Matheny’s
motion for reversal and/or remand (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) (ECF No. 22) and Defendant’s
cross-motion to affirm (“Defendant’s Motion”) (ECF No. 23). The Magistrate Judge
recommended denying Plaintiff’s Motion and granting Defendant’s Motion. (ECF No. 25)
Plaintiff had until December 20, 2017, to file any objection. To date, no objection has been
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. Upon review of the R&R and the records in this
case, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge and adopts the R&R in full.
It is hereby ordered that the R&R (ECF No. 25) is accepted and adopted in full.
Plaintiff’s motion for remand or reversal (ECF No. 22) is denied and defendant’s cross-
motion to affirm (ECF No. 23) is granted.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case.
DATED THIS 9th day of January 2018.
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?