Opinion
Case No. 3:17-cv-00065-MMD-WGC
04-19-2018
TRACEY LEE GRANT, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 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. 22) ("R&R") relating to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 16) and Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment ("Cross Motion") (ECF No. 20). Defendant had fourteen (14) days, or until January 24, 2018, to object to the R&R. (ECF No. 22.) To date, no objection to the R&R 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." Id. 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).
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and denying the Commissioner's Cross Motion. (ECF No. 22.) The Commissioner has not objected. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the R&R.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 22) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 16) is granted.
It is further ordered that Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) is denied.
It is further ordered that this case is remanded to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings.
The Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this case.
DATED THIS 19th day of April 2018.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE