Spencer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

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

9 Meagan M Spencer, No. CV-23-01604-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

15 This is a Social Security appeal. On August 14, 2023, the Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Bibles for the preparation of a report and recommendation (“R&R”) as to the final disposition. (Doc. 7.) On May 24, 2024, Judge Bibles issued an R&R concluding that the ALJ’s decision should be affirmed. (Doc. 24.) The R&R further explained that “[p]ursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Id. at 45.)

23 Here, no such objections have been filed and the 14-day deadline has expired. Thus, the Court accepts the R&R’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (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.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and || recommendation unless objections are filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 2|| F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s || findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that: 6 1. The R&R (Doc. 24) is adopted.

7 2. The decision of the ALJ is affirmed.

8 3. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action.

9 Dated this 11th day of June, 2024.

11 Lom ee” 12 f t _o—— Dominic W. Lanza 13 United States District Judge _2-