District Court, D. Nevada, 2025

Luis Taylor v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Luis Taylor v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, D. Nevada · Decided December 3, 2025
Luis Taylor v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA LUIS TAYLOR, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00303-GMN-MDC vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND FRANK BISIGNANO, RECOMMENDATION Commissioner of Social Security Defendant.

9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 21), from United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III, which recommends granting the Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, (ECF No. 19), filed by Plaintiff Luis Taylor.

13 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The 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); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the 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. 22 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).

25 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF 1 21) (setting a November 27, 2025 deadline for objections).

3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 21), is ||} ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, (ECF || No. 19), is GRANTED.

8 Dated this 3 day of December, 2025.

10 yy Te Gloria M. Ka} arro, District Judge United States District Court Page 2 of 2

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.