Mitchell v. Berryhill

D. Nevada

Mitchell v. Berryhill

DecidedFebruary 28, 2020

Docket2:18-cv-01501

StatusUnknown

This text of Mitchell v. Berryhill (Mitchell v. Berryhill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mitchell v. Berryhill, (D. Nev. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 STEPHANIE MITCHELL, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:18-cv-01501-GMN-WGC 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting ) 7 Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) 8 Defendant. ) ) 9 ) 10 11 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 12 Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, (ECF No. 28), which recommends that Plaintiff Stephanie 13 Mitchell’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 18), be granted. The R&R further 14 recommends that Defendant Commissioner Nancy Berryhill’s (“Defendant’s”) Countermotion 15 to Affirm the Agency Decision, (ECF No. 21), be denied. 16 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 17 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 18 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 19 determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 20 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 21 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is 22 not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 23 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 24 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 25 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 2 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so, February 27, 2020, has passed. 3 (Min. Order, ECF No. 28). 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 28), is 6 ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 18), is 8 GRANTED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Countermotion to Affirm the Agency 10 Decision, (ECF No. 21), is DENIED. 11 The Clerk is instructed to close the case. 12 DATED this __2_8__ day of February, 2020. 13 14 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

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

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 STEPHANIE MITCHELL, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:18-cv-01501-GMN-WGC 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting ) 7 Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) 8 Defendant. ) ) 9 ) 10 11 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 12 Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, (ECF No. 28), which recommends that Plaintiff Stephanie 13 Mitchell’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 18), be granted. The R&R further 14 recommends that Defendant Commissioner Nancy Berryhill’s (“Defendant’s”) Countermotion 15 to Affirm the Agency Decision, (ECF No. 21), be denied. 16 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 17 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 18 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 19 determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 20 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 21 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is 22 not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 23 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 24 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 25 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 2 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so, February 27, 2020, has passed. 3 (Min. Order, ECF No. 28). 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 28), is 6 ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 18), is 8 GRANTED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Countermotion to Affirm the Agency 10 Decision, (ECF No. 21), is DENIED. 11 The Clerk is instructed to close the case. 12 DATED this __2_8__ day of February, 2020. 13 14 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mitchell v. Berryhill, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-berryhill-nvd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack