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)

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