Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
This text of Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Lopez 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.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Francine A Lopez, No. CV-22-00761-PHX-JFM
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf. On May 6, 2022, 16 the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court,1 recommending 17 that the Plaintiff be denied IFP status and be required to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 6). 18 Thereafter, on May 12, the Plaintiff paid the filing fee. 19
20 1 This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the matter is before this Court pursuant 21 to General Order 21-25, which states in relevant part:
22 When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be 23 appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent 24 to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge,
25 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court 27 Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on my behalf: 28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 The 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)(C); see □□□□□□ □□□ Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service 5|| of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific written || objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a 7\| Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of 8 || the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on 9|| appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a □□ Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of 11 || finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 15 || adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 16 CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 18 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate || Judge, to the extent that the R&R is not moot. (Doc. 6). 20 Dated this 27th day of May, 2022. 21 22 23 — Lil nora ah Beene Hdhorable Stephen M. McNamee 24 Senior United States District Judge 25 26 27 28
_2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2022.