Mansfield v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Opinion

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

9 Stephanie Mansfield, No. CV-24-00182-TUC-AMM

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On February 24, 2025, Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court deny Plaintiff’s Complaint and 17 affirm the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. 31.) Judge 18 Macdonald notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days to file any written objections to 19 the proposed findings and recommendation. (Id. at 16.) Neither party filed an objection, 20 and the time to do so has now passed. 21 A district court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is 22 not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 23 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those 24 portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 25 objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the 26 face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory 27 Committee Notes 1983 Addition. 28 The Court has reviewed Judge Macdonald’s R&R, the parties’ briefs, and the record. 1 || The Court finds no clear error. 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 31.) 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is denied (Doc. 1) and 5 || the Commissioner’s final decision is affirmed. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment || accordingly, term any pending motions, and close the file in this case. 7 Dated this 13th day of March, 2025. 8 9 Dara Ln. he. oct 10 ~ Honorable Angela M. Martinez ll United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-