Opinion
Case No. 3:19-cv-00384-MMD-CLB
12-01-2020
CHERYL ANN CARLSON, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, Interested Party.
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Cheryl Ann Carlson brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R" or "Recommendation") of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 27), recommending Plaintiff's motion for remand for consideration of new medical evidence (ECF No. 24 ("Remand Motion")) be denied, and that Defendant Andrew Saul's motion to affirm Defendant's decision denying Plaintiff disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income (ECF No. 25 ("Affirm Motion")) be granted. Plaintiff had until November 30, 2020 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will deny Plaintiff's Remand Motion, and grant Defendant's Affirm Motion.
Judge Baldwin properly construed a document that Plaintiff filed (ECF No. 24) as a motion to remand. (ECF No. 27 at 1.) --------
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). Where a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation, 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); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) ("De novo review of the magistrate judges' findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.") (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.").
Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends denying Plaintiff's Remand Motion because the July 30, 2020 Spine Nevada medical report is not material to the Defendant's decision, but rather could be material to a new application for benefits. (ECF No. 27 at 8.) The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 27) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for remand (ECF No. 24) is denied.
It is further ordered that Defendant's motion to affirm (ECF No. 25) is granted.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and close this case.
DATED THIS 1st Day of December 2020.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE