From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fisher v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jan 24, 2017
No. CV-16-04455-PHX-DMF (D. Ariz. Jan. 24, 2017)

Opinion

No. CV-16-04455-PHX-DMF

01-24-2017

Steven David Fisher, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.


ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) and United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), which recommends dismissal of the Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Doc. 7.) The Magistrate Judge advised the Plaintiff that he had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 7 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Plaintiff did not file an objection, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) ("[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to."). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well- taken. The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate"); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.").

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Fine's R&R (Doc. 7) is accepted.

2. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend within 30 days of the date of this Order. If Plaintiff elects not to file an amended complaint by February 22, 2017, the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing this action without further order of this Court.

3. If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint may not be served until and unless the Court screens it pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

3. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 2) is denied as moot.

Dated this 24th day of January, 2017.

/s/_________

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Fisher v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jan 24, 2017
No. CV-16-04455-PHX-DMF (D. Ariz. Jan. 24, 2017)
Case details for

Fisher v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.

Case Details

Full title:Steven David Fisher, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of the Social Security…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Jan 24, 2017

Citations

No. CV-16-04455-PHX-DMF (D. Ariz. Jan. 24, 2017)