Mathew Jason Segur v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Opinion

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

9 Mathew Jason Segur, No. CV-25-03454-PHX-SHD

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 At issue before the Court is the denial of Plaintiff’s claims for Supplemental 16 Security Disability Insurance under the Social Security Act. The Magistrate Judge to 17 whom this case was assigned issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 18 recommending that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be reversed 19 and the matter remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. 20 (Doc. 23). Neither party has objected to the R&R and the time for filing objections has run. 21 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 23 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 24 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 25 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 26 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo 27 review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”); 28 Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th 1 || Cuir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] 2 || recommendations to which the parties object.’’). District courts are not required to conduct 3|| “any review all... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court || shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] 6 || to which objection is made.”). 7 There being no objections, 8 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 23) is accepted. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner is 10 |} REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment || accordingly. 13 Dated this 8th day of June, 2026. 14 15 □ 16 / 17 is H le Sharad H. Desai 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-