Watkins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

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

9 Sarah Watkins, No. CV-24-00285-TUC-AMM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

15 On August 28, 2025, Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision and remand the matter for further consideration. (Doc. 28.) Judge Markovich notified the parties they had until September 4, 2025 to file any written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation. (Id. at 74.) Neither party filed an objection, and the time to do so has now passed.

21 A district court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 23 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Addition. A district judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 1|| U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2 The Court has reviewed Judge Markovich’s R&R, the parties’ briefs, and the || record. The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the findings and recommendation.

4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc.

6|| 28.)

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED || and the matter is REMANDED for further consideration. The Clerk of Court shall enter || judgment accordingly and close this case.

10 Dated this 5th day of September, 2025.

12 Dw 2. Y\out 13 ~ Honorable Angela M. Martinez 14 United States District Judge _2-