Opinion
Case No. 3:15-cv-00249-MMD-WGC
07-27-2016
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (ECF No. 18), regarding Plaintiff Ronald Crossman's Motion for Reversal and/or Remand (ECF No. 12) and Defendant Commissioner's Cross-Motion to Affirm and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF Nos. 15, 16). Judge Cobb recommends granting Plaintiff's motion and denying the Commissioner's cross-motion. (ECF No. 18.) The Commissioner has until June 6, 2016, to object (ECF No. 18). 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, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review in order to determine whether to adopt the R&R. The R&R finds that the ALJ erred in determining there was no conflict between the vocational expert's ("VE") testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, and such error is not harmless. (ECF No. 18.) The R&R recommends that the matter be remanded for additional testimony from the VE. Upon review of the R&R and the records in this case, the Court finds good cause to adopt the R&R in full.
It is hereby ordered that the R&R (ECF No. 18) is accepted and adopted. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 12) is granted and the Commissioner's Cross-Motion to Affirm (ECF No. 15) is denied.
It is further ordered that the case is remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18).
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this case.
DATED THIS 27th day of July 2016.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE