United States District Court, D. Nevada
M. NAVARRO, DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is the Amended Report and Recommendation of
the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J.
Youchah, (ECF No. 72), which states, inter alia,
that Plaintiff Darrin Duhamel's (“Plaintiff”)
Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 52), should be
denied and that the Commissioner's Cross-Motion to Remand
for Further Proceedings, (ECF No. 57), should be granted in
part and denied in part.
may file specific written objections to the findings and
recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made
pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);
D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the
Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to
which objections are made. Id. The 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); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). 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, e.g., United
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir.
no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Amended Report
and Recommendation, (ECF No. 72), is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED in full.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation, (ECF No. 68), is REJECTED as
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended
Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 52), is
DENIED and that the Commissioner's
Cross-Motion to Remand for Further Proceedings, (ECF No. 57),
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to
the Commissioner of Social Security under the Compassionate
Allowance program as this case has been pending for more than
six years, and time is of the essence.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that remand is pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff be permitted to
submit additional evidence within 60 days of the date of this
Order, and, if needed, receive a new hearing within 150 days
of the date of this Order, unless Plaintiff is unable to
proceed within that timeframe.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's testimony be
reevaluated given the additional evidence available and to be
provided to the ALJ for consideration in determining the
credibility of Plaintiff's testimony. The ALJ shall
articulate, if appropriate to the ALJ's reevaluation, the
specific basis why he continues to discredit Plaintiff's
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ALJ reevaluate the
analysis of treating physicians' opinions and articulate,
if appropriate to the ALJ's reevaluation, why he
continues to reject the opinions of these treating
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ALJ reevaluate all
remaining evidence in light of the new evidence presented to
assess Plaintiffs symptoms and limitations.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ALJ take any further
action needed to complete the administrative record and ...