Newton v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, D. Nevada

Newton v. Commissioner of Social Security

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JENAIL H. NEWTON, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:18-cv-00971-GMN-EJY 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER ANDREW SAUL, Acting ) 7 Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) 8 Defendant. ) ) 9 ) 10 11 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 12 Magistrate Judge Elayna Youchah, (ECF No. 32), which recommends that Plaintiff Jenail H. 13 Newton’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 17), be denied. The R&R further recommends that 14 Defendant Commissioner Nancy Berryhill’s1 Cross-Motion to Affirm the Agency Decision, 15 (ECF No. 25), be granted. 16 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 17 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B); 18 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 19 determination of those portions to which objections are made.

Id.

The Court may accept, reject, 20 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 21

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is 22 not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 23 objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140, 149

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 24

25 1 The caption reflects that Andrew Saul has been named Acting Commissioner of Social Security since Nancy Berryhill filed the Motion to Remand. 1 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 2 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114

, 3 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 4 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so, March 11, 2020, has passed. 5 (Min. Order, ECF No. 32). 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 32), is 8 ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 17), is 10 DENIED. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Cross-Motion to Affirm the Agency 12 Decision, ((EECCFF NNoo.. 2256)),, is GRANTED. 13 The Clerk is instructed to close the case. 14 DATED this __1_9__ day of March 2020. 15 16 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 17 United States District Court 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Reference

Status
Unknown