United States District Court, D. Nevada
WILLIAM R. LYONS, Plaintiff,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants.
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable William G. Cobb, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on July 25, 2013 (dkt. no. 5), regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (dkt no. 4) and Plaintiff's Complaint (dkt. no. 1-1). The R&R recommends that Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be granted, but that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff William R. Lyons filed an objection to the R&R on August 7, 2013. (Dkt. no. 6.) This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 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). The Court, considering Plaintiff's Objection to Judge Cobb's ruling dismissing the Complaint with prejudice, engages in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb's R&R.
Plaintiff's Complaint seeks $39, 000 in retroactive Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") from the Social Security Administration ("SSA") for benefits Plaintiff was denied between 2001 and 2003. In his correspondence with the SSA, attached to Plaintiff's Complaint, the SSA indicated that the "law prohibits retroactive benefits to beneficiaries or their representative payees while the beneficiary is a prisoner" and that Plaintiff or the prison should contact SSA before Plaintiff is released. (Dkt. no. 1-1 at 19.) The R&R likewise found that under the "No Social Security Benefits for Prisoners Act of 2009, " which became Public Law 111-115, the SSA is prohibited from paying retroactive benefits to beneficiaries or terminated beneficiaries while they are incarcerated. As it is undisputed that the benefits Plaintiff seeks are retroactive SSI benefits and that Plaintiff is currently incarcerated, the Court finds that Plaintiff may not receive retroactive SSI benefits at this time. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
It is hereby ordered that Magistrate Judge Cobb's Report and Recommendation (dkt. no. 5) is accepted and adopted.
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (dkt no. 4) is granted.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Complaint (dkt. no. 1-1) is ...