Opinion
Case No. 3:15-cv-00603-MMD-WGC
10-10-2017
CHERYL LAGO, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 20) ("R&R") relating to Plaintiff Cheryl Lago's Motion for Reversal and/or Remand (ECF No. 15) and Defendant Carolyn Colvin's Cross Motion to Affirm (ECF No. 18). The Magistrate judge recommends denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reversal and/or Remand and granting Defendant's Cross Motion to Affirm. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, had until October 6, 2016, to object to the R&R. To date, no objection has been filed.
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). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, then the court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit's decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review "any issue that is not the subject of an objection."). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation, then the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge's recommendation to which no objection was filed).
Nevertheless, considering Lago's pro se status, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb's R&R. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ's) decision and found it was supported by substantial evidence in the record. (ECF No. 20 at 7-14.) Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge's R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 20) be accepted and adopted in its entirety. It is ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for Reversal and/or Remand (ECF No. 15) is denied and Defendant's Cross Motion to Affirm (ECF No. 18) is granted.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this case.
DATED THIS 10th day of October 2017.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE