United States District Court, D. Nevada
July 10, 2014
SHARON A. HELSEL, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (dkt. no. 24), regarding Plaintiff Sharon A. Helsel's Motion to Remand (dkt. no. 14) and Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin's Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment (dkt. no. 22). Judge Cobb entered the R&R on February 5, 2014. Objections to the R&R were due by February 22, 2014. No objections were filed.
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).
Neverthless, 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's decision to uphold the denial of Plaintiff's disability claims was supported by substantial evidence on the record. The R&R thus recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion to remand for a new hearing (dkt. no. 14) and grant Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. no. 22). In reaching its conclusion, the R&R makes the following findings: (1) the ALJ met his burden of showing specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting consultative physician's assessment of Plaintiff's ability to stand or walk; and (2) the ALJ properly set forth specific, clear and convincing reasons for making an adverse credibility determination regarding Plaintiff's testimony and allegations of her limitations. Upon review of the R&R and the record in this case, the Court determines that it is appropriate to adopt the R&R in full.
It is hereby ordered that the R&R (dkt. no. 24) is accepted and adopted. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (dkt. no. 14) is denied and Defendant's Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment (dkt. no. 22) is granted. The decision of the ALJ is affirmed.