Rogers 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 Luz M Rogers, No. CV-20-00532-TUC-SHR

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14

15 On January 11, 2022, Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision 17 and remand this matter back to the agency for the calculation and award of benefits. (Doc. 18 26 at 16.) The Magistrate Judge informed the parties they had fourteen days to file 19 objections to the R&R and an additional fourteen days to respond. (Id. at 15.) No 20 objections have been filed and neither party has requested additional time to do so. 21 If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the 22 District Court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any specified 23 standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna- 24 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (district court only needs to review 25 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made). However, 26 the statute for review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation “does not preclude further 27 review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any 28 other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. 1 In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on January 31, 2022. As noted, 2|| no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so. 3 || Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Schmidt v. Johnstone, 4|| 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (district court declined to review the magistrate 5 || judge’s report because no objections were filed). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the 6|| Plaintiff's Opening Brief (Doc. 21), the Commissioner’s Response Brief (Doc. 22), the Plaintiff’s Reply Brief (Doc. 25), and Judge Aguilera’s R&R. (Doc. 26.) The Court finds 8 || the R&R well-reasoned and agrees with Judge Aguilera’s conclusions. Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera’s Report and 10) Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 26.) I IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the final decision of the Commissioner of Social 12 Security is VACATED and REMANDED to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration for the calculation and award of benefits. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 15 accordingly and close the file in this case. 16 Dated this 14th day of February, 2022. 17 18 ;

20 Honorable Scott H, Rash _/ United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-