Olney v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Diana L Olney, No. CV-20-00235-TUC-JCH 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Diana Olney filed a complaint appealing the decision of 17 the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) which denied her disability benefits for lack of a 18 disability. The Court then referred this matter to Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro who 19 issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on April 29, 2021 (Doc. 19). The R&R 20 recommended that this Court vacate the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social 21 Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) and remand this action for further 22 proceedings. The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on May 14, 2021. (See 23 Doc. 19 at 13-14). For the following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R in full and remands 24 this matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. 25 I. Analysis 26 When reviewing a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, this Court “may 27 accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 28 magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must review the magistrate || judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 2|| United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). District courts are not required to conduct “any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 5|| U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 6 Here, the deadline for filing objections was on May 14, 2021. However, no objections have been filed and neither party has requested additional time to do so. 8 || Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna—Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Judge Ferraro’s 10 || recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING IN FULL Judge Ferraro’s 13 || R&R (Doc. 19); 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED VACATING the Commissioner's decision and |} REMANDING this matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings as 16|| set forth in this Order; 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DIRECTING the Clerk of the Court to terminate 18 || this action and enter judgment accordingly. 19 Dated this 19th day of May, 2021. 20 21 22 WS herb onorable John C. Hinderaker 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 _2-