Kaycee Forsyth v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

Kaycee Forsyth v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedOctober 24, 2025

Docket4:24-cv-00571

StatusUnknown

This text of Kaycee Forsyth v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Kaycee Forsyth v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kaycee Forsyth v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Kaycee Forsyth, No. CV-24-00571-TUC-SHR

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 On September 23, 2025, Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report and 17 Recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommended the Court reverse the Commissioner 18 of Social Security's decision and remand the matter for an award of benefits. (Doc. 20.) 19 The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of 20 the R&R to file any objections. (Id. at 16.) No objections have been filed. 21 If neither party objects to a magistrate judge's R&R, the District Court is not 22 required to review the magistrate judge's decision under any specified standard of review. 23 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 24 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (noting a district court need only review a magistrate 25 judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made). However, the statute 26 for review of a magistrate judge's recommendation "does not preclude further review by 27 the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other 28 standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. 1 In this case, the deadline for filing objections has passed. As noted, no objections 2|| have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so despite the warning || from Judge Macdonald indicating "[flailure to file timely objections to any factual or legal 4|| determination of the Magistrate Judge may result in waiver of the right to review.” (Doc. 5|| 20 at 16.) Therefore, the Court will adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Schmidt v. || Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (declining to substantively review || the magistrate judge's report and recommendation because no objections were filed). 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED Magistrate Judge Macdonald's R&R (Doc. 20) is ADOPTED. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Commissioner of Social Security's decision is 11 |} REVERSED. This matter is REMANDED for an award of benefits consistent with the R&R. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 15 Dated this 23rd day of October, 2025. 16 17 / /)

19 Honorable Scott H,. Rash United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Kaycee Forsyth, No. CV-24-00571-TUC-SHR

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 On September 23, 2025, Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report and 17 Recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommended the Court reverse the Commissioner 18 of Social Security's decision and remand the matter for an award of benefits. (Doc. 20.) 19 The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of 20 the R&R to file any objections. (Id. at 16.) No objections have been filed. 21 If neither party objects to a magistrate judge's R&R, the District Court is not 22 required to review the magistrate judge's decision under any specified standard of review. 23 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 24 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (noting a district court need only review a magistrate 25 judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made). However, the statute 26 for review of a magistrate judge's recommendation "does not preclude further review by 27 the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other 28 standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. 1 In this case, the deadline for filing objections has passed. As noted, no objections 2|| have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so despite the warning || from Judge Macdonald indicating "[flailure to file timely objections to any factual or legal 4|| determination of the Magistrate Judge may result in waiver of the right to review.” (Doc. 5|| 20 at 16.) Therefore, the Court will adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Schmidt v. || Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (declining to substantively review || the magistrate judge's report and recommendation because no objections were filed). 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED Magistrate Judge Macdonald's R&R (Doc. 20) is ADOPTED. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Commissioner of Social Security's decision is 11 |} REVERSED. This matter is REMANDED for an award of benefits consistent with the R&R. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 15 Dated this 23rd day of October, 2025. 16 17 / /)

19 Honorable Scott H,. Rash United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kaycee Forsyth v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaycee-forsyth-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack