Moreno v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Monica Moreno, No. CV-21-01279-PHX-GMS (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine (Doc. 24)1 issued July 12, 2022, regarding Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking review of the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that the decision of the ALJ dated November 13, 2020 (R. at 36-50) be reversed and remanded to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 19 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 6, 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). No objections were filed.

Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. Citation to the record indicates documents as displayed in the official Court electronic document filing system maintained by the District of Arizona under Case No. CV-21- 01279-PHX-GMS (DMF) 1) R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 2| Thomas vy. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a 4) timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the | rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A 6| party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not | timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); 9| Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).

10 Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and | finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition and Amended Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, | reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate’).

15 IT IS ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc.

24) is accepted.

17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED reversing the November 13, 2020, decision of the | Administrative Law Judge, (R. at 36-50), and remanding this matter for further proceedings | consistent with this Order and the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge | which this Order adopts.

21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter final judgment | consistent with this Order and to close this case.

23 Dated this 31st day of August, 2022.

24 - 35 A Whacrsay Sooo) Whicren 26 Chief United states District Judge _2-