Flores v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA John E dward Flores, ) No. CV-21-08175-PCT-SPL ) ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) ) Commissioner of Social Security ) Administration, ) ) ) 14 Defendant. ) 15 Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1), challenging the denial of his claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The Honorable Michelle H. Burns, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 29), recommending that the Court affirm the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.

19 Judge Burns advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to do so could be considered a waiver of the right to review (Doc. 29 at 11) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 31) and Defendant filed a Response (Doc. 33).

23 A district judge “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). When a party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It | follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific 2| objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 3| U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial 4} economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or | arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s | decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 7| (9th Cir. 2000).

8 The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently developed record. Plaintiff's objections to the findings and recommendations have also | been thoroughly considered.

11 After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches | the same conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge. The R&R will be adopted in full.

13 | Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and | Recommendation (Doc. 29) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. 31) is overruled.

17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of the | Social Security Administration is affirmed.

19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment | accordingly and terminate this case.

21 Dated this 21st day of February, 2023.

23 □□