Gibson v. Colvin

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided September 10, 2019·No. 2:16-cv-01885·Unknown

Opinion

3 DELORIS A. GIBSON, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:16-cv-01885-GMN-BNW 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting ) 7 Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) 8 Defendant. ) ) 9 ) 10 11 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 12 Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler, (ECF No. 31), which recommends that Plaintiff Deloris 13 Gibson’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 25), be granted. The R&R further recommends that 14 Defendant Commissioner Nancy Berryhill’s Cross-Motion to Affirm the Agency Decision, 15 (ECF No. 26), be denied. 16 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 17 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 18 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 19 determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 20 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 21 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is 22 not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 23 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 24 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 25 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 2 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so, August 15, 2019, has passed. 3 (Min. Order, ECF No. 31). 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 31), is 6 ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 25), is 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Cross-Motion to Affirm the Agency 10 Decision, (ECF No. 26), is DENIED. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Social Security 12 Administration. 13 The Clerk is instructed to close the case. 14 15 DATED this _1_0___ day of September, 2019. 16 17 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 18 United States District Court 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gibson v. Colvin, (D. Nev. 2019).

Gibson v. Colvin (Gibson v. Colvin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)