Crook v. Bisignano

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

STEPHEN KYLE COOK, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:24-cv-00420-RJS-DBP

FRANK BISIGNANO, Social Security Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby Commissioner, Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead Defendant.

Before the court is the Report and Recommendation1 issued in the above captioned case by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on August 27, 2025. The Report recommends the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed and Plaintiff’s Motion for Review of Agency Action2 be denied. In the Report, Judge Pead notified the parties of their right file any objections to the Report within 14 days of being served with a copy of it.3 He cautioned that “[f]ailure to object may constitute waiver of objections upon subsequent review.”4 More than 14 days have now elapsed, and no party has filed an objection to the Report. When no objections are filed, the Supreme Court has suggested no further review by the district

1 Dkt. 21, Report and Recommendation. 2 Dkt. 15, Plaintiff’s Motion for Review of Agency Action (Motion). 3 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating a party may file written objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days of being served with a copy of the same); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.”). 4 Report and Recommendation at 10. court is required, but nor is it precluded.* This court reviews for clear error any report and recommendation to which no objections have been raised.° Having carefully considered the Report, the court determines Judge Pead’s analysis and conclusions are sound. The court finds no clear error and the Report is adopted in full. ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion’ is DENIED and the Report and Recommendation’ is ADOPTED in full. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED this 26th day of September 2025.

BY THE COURT:

ROBERT #< United Sta@@s Chief District Judge

5 See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“The [Federal Magistrate’s Act] does not on its face require any review at all, by either the district court or the court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 6 See, e.g., Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made [to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation], the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”) (citation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee’s Note to 1983 Amendment (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”) (citation omitted). 7 Dkt. 15. 8 Dkt. 21.