Mandy Waterhouse v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

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

9 Mandy Waterhouse, No. CV-25-00508-TUC-JGZ 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

15 On March 10, 2026, Magistrate Judge Michael A. Ambri issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommended the Court affirm the Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff disability benefits. (Doc. 20.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any objections. No objections have been filed.

20 This Court “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)(1). “[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). District courts are 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 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

27 The Court has reviewed Judge Ambri’s R&R, the parties’ briefs, and the record.

28 The Court finds the R&R well-reasoned and agrees with Judge Ambri’s conclusion that 1] the Commissioner’s decision should be affirmed.

2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) is accepted and 4|| adopted in full. The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff disability benefits is || affirmed.

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall docket this Order and close || this action.

8 Dated this 26th day of March, 2026. i // Jennifer G. i ps 12 Chiet United States District Judge -2-