Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fearly v. Social Security Administration

United States District Court, D. Nevada

November 21, 2014

CHERYL FEARLY, Plaintiff,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant

Cheryl Fealy, Plaintiff, Pro se, Las Vegas, NV.

For Social Security Administration, Defendant: Blaine T Welsh, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Attorney's Office, Las Vegas, NV; Donna W. Anderson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE V. CAM FERENBACH

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, United States District Judge.

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) of the Honorable V. Cam Ferenbach, United States Magistrate Judge, entered July 25, 2014.

A district 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). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to " make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct " any review, " de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by August 11, 2014. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge's recommendations that Plaintiff's claims under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments be dismissed with prejudice, that Plaintiff's breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to exercise due diligence claims be dismissed with prejudice, and that Plaintiff's state law claims should be dismissed without prejudice. The Report further recommends that Plaintiff's (ECF No. 10) Motion to Dismiss be granted, and that Defendant's (ECF No. 13) Motion to Amend be denied. The Court has determined that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this opinion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff's claims under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments are Dismissed with Prejudice. Plaintiff's breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to exercise due diligence claims are Dismissed with Prejudice . Plaintiff's state law claims are Dismissed without Prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's (ECF No. 10) Motion to Dismiss be granted and that Defendant's (ECF No. 13) Motion to Amend be denied.

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close case.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.