Miller 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 8

Scott M iller, ) No. CV-23-00664-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) Commissioner of Social Security ) 12 Administration, ) ) 13 ) 14 Defendant. )

15 Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1), challenging the denial of his disability 16 insurance benefits. The Honorable Deborah M. Fine, United States Magistrate Judge, 17 issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 23), recommending that the Court 18 reverse the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and remand for further proceedings. 19 Judge Fine advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the 20 R&R and that failure to do so could be considered a waiver of the right to review (Doc. 23 21 at 20) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 22 2003)). Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 24), and no response was filed. 23 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 24 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a 25 timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R 26 that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires 27 specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United 28 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It 1 | follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific 2| objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 3| U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial 4} economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or 5 | arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s 6 | decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 7| (9th Cir. 2000). 8 The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently developed record. Plaintiff's objections to the findings and recommendations have also 10 | been thoroughly considered. 11 After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches 12 | the same conclusions reached by the magistrate judge. The R&R will be adopted in full. 13 | Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine’s Report and 15 | Recommendation (Doc. 23) is accepted and adopted by the Court. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 24) are overruled. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of the 18 | Social Security Administration is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment 20 | accordingly and terminate this case. 21 Dated this 25th day of September, 2024. 22 - 23 LEGG 24 25 26 27 28