Morgan Matchett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

Morgan Matchett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided September 2, 2026·No. 4:25-cv-00457·Unknown

Opinion

Morgan Matchett, No. CV-25-00457-TUC-SHR

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant. On August 14, 2026, Magistrate Judge Lynnette Kimmins issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which she recommended the Court reverse the Commissioner of Social Security's decision and remand the matter to the ALJ for a new hearing and further proceedings. (Doc. 23.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R to file any objections. (Id. at 7.) No objections have been filed. If neither party objects to a magistrate judge's R&R, the District Court is not required to review the magistrate judge's decision under any specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (noting a district court need only review a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made). However, the statute for review of a magistrate judge's recommendation "does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. In this case, the deadline for filing objections has passed. As noted, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so despite the warning from Judge Kimmins indicating “[i]f objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived.” (Doc. 23 at 7.) Therefore, the Court will adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (declining to substantively review the magistrate judge's report and recommendation because no objections were filed). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED Magistrate Judge Kimmins's R&R (Doc. 23) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Commissioner of Social Security's decision is REVERSED. This matter is REMANDED to the ALJ for a new hearing and further proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly 15} and close this case. Dated this Ist day of September, 2026. □ /)

Honorable Scott H, Rash _/ United States District Judge

_2-

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

Morgan Matchett, No. CV-25-00457-TUC-SHR

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant. On August 14, 2026, Magistrate Judge Lynnette Kimmins issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which she recommended the Court reverse the Commissioner of Social Security's decision and remand the matter to the ALJ for a new hearing and further proceedings. (Doc. 23.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R to file any objections. (Id. at 7.) No objections have been filed. If neither party objects to a magistrate judge's R&R, the District Court is not required to review the magistrate judge's decision under any specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (noting a district court need only review a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made). However, the statute for review of a magistrate judge's recommendation "does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. In this case, the deadline for filing objections has passed. As noted, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so despite the warning from Judge Kimmins indicating “[i]f objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived.” (Doc. 23 at 7.) Therefore, the Court will adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (declining to substantively review the magistrate judge's report and recommendation because no objections were filed). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED Magistrate Judge Kimmins's R&R (Doc. 23) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Commissioner of Social Security's decision is REVERSED. This matter is REMANDED to the ALJ for a new hearing and further proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly 15} and close this case. Dated this Ist day of September, 2026. □ /)

Honorable Scott H, Rash _/ United States District Judge

_2-

Morgan Matchett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2026).

Pincite

Morgan Matchett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Morgan Matchett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related