Moreno v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Monica Moreno, No. CV-21-01279-PHX-GMS (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 16 Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine (Doc. 24)1 issued July 12, 2022, regarding Plaintiff’s 17 Complaint seeking review of the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits 18 under the Social Security Act (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that the decision of the 19 ALJ dated November 13, 2020 (R. at 36-50) be reversed and remanded to the Social 20 Security Administration for further administrative proceedings. The Magistrate Judge 21 advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 19 22 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 6, 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). No 23 objections were filed. 24 Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the 25 Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. 26 27 1 Citation to the record indicates documents as displayed in the official Court electronic 28 document filing system maintained by the District of Arizona under Case No. CV-21- 01279-PHX-GMS (DMF) 1) R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 2| Thomas vy. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a 4) timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the 5 | rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A 6| party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not 8 | timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); 9| Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 10 Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and 11 | finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition and Amended Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, 13 | reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate’). 15 IT IS ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 24) is accepted. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED reversing the November 13, 2020, decision of the 18 | Administrative Law Judge, (R. at 36-50), and remanding this matter for further proceedings 19 | consistent with this Order and the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge 20 | which this Order adopts. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter final judgment 22 | consistent with this Order and to close this case. 23 Dated this 31st day of August, 2022. 24 - 35 A Whacrsay Sooo) Whicren 26 Chief United states District Judge 27 28 _2-