1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 ROBERT GENE MOORE, JR., Case No. 3:19-cv-00348-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social 9 Security,

10 Defendant. 11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Robert Moore, Jr. brings this action for judicial review with respect 13 to the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security 14 income pursuant to Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Before the Court is the 15 Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate 16 Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 18), recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for remand 17 (ECF No. 15) be denied, Defendant’s motion to affirm (ECF No. 17) be granted, and that 18 this case be closed. Plaintiff had until October 21, 2020 to file an objection. To date, no 19 objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court 20 adopts the R&R and close this case. 21 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 23 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 24 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 25 v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

, 26 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 27 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 1 || Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 2 || clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 3 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 4 || satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends Plaintiff's 5 || motion for remand be denied as substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law 6 || Judge’s (“ALJ”) findings that Plaintiff's alleged mental impairments were non-severe and 7 || that the ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff's alleged physical impairments in determining his 8 || residual functional capacity. (ECF No. 18 at 8-14.) Accordingly, Judge Baldwin further 9 || recommends that Defendant's motion to affirm be granted. (/d. at 15.) The Court agrees 10 || with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will 11 || adopt the R&R in full. 12 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 13 || No. 18) is accepted and adopted in full. 14 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for remand (ECF No. 15) is denied. 15 It is further ordered that Defendant’s motion to affirm (ECF No. 17)! is granted. 16 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this case. 17 DATED THIS 29" Day of March 2021. 18 19 ( | { 20 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 || ——__ og ||... ‘The Court notes that ECF No. 17 was docketed as a response but it is titled asa motion for affirmance.” The Court will construe ECF No. 17 as Defendant's motion to affirm and grants the motion. (See a/so ECF No. 18 at 1-2, n.3.)