Lopez v. Social Security Administration et al

Filing 25

ORDER AFFIRMING & ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendant's 22 MOTION to Dismiss is GRANTED, and this action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 1/7/2025. (eat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
JERRY ERNEST LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 1:24CV00036-DAK-DAO

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

Judge Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg

This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Dale A. Kimball, who referred
the case to United States Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On
August 22, 2024, the Commissioner of Social Security filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction.1 On December 4, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the court grant the Motion to Dismiss on the
ground that the agency decisions that Mr. Lopez sought to challenge are not final decisions
subject to judicial review. The court, therefore, does not have jurisdiction over Mr. Lopez’s
claims. 2
The R&R notified the parties that any objection to the R&R must be filed within fourteen
days of being served with a copy of the R&R. Over a month has passed since the R&R was
entered, and the court has not received an objection.

1
2

ECF No. 22.
ECF No. 23.

“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge's]
report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th
Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress
intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a
de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”). The court is
satisfied that Judge Oberg’s Recommendation is sound and that there is no clear error on the
face of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Accordingly, the court affirms and adopts Magistrate Judge Oberg’s Report and
Recommendation [ECF No. 23] in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF
No. 22] is GRANTED, and this action is dismissed without prejudice.
DATED this 7th day of January 2025.
BY THE COURT:

DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge

2