Carlson v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 CHERYL ANN CARLSON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00384-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v. 9 ANDREW M. SAUL, Acting 10 Commissioner of Social Security, 11 Defendant, 12 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE 13 OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 14 Interested Party. 15 16 Pro se Plaintiff Cheryl Ann Carlson brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 17 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of 18 United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 27), recommending Plaintiff’s 19 motion for remand for consideration of new medical evidence (ECF No. 24 (“Remand 20 Motion”))1 be denied, and that Defendant Andrew Saul’s motion to affirm Defendant’s 21 decision denying Plaintiff disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income 22 (ECF No. 25 (“Affirm Motion”)) be granted. Plaintiff had until November 30, 2020 to file an 23 objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as 24 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will deny Plaintiff’s Remand Motion, and 25 grant Defendant’s Affirm Motion. 26 27 1Judge Baldwin properly construed a document that Plaintiff filed (ECF No. 24) as 1 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 2 || recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 3 || fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 4 || conduct “any review at all. . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 5 || v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 6 || 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 7 || recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 8 || findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 9 || Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 10 || clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 11 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 12 || satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends denying 13 || Plaintiff's Remand Motion because the July 30, 2020 Spine Nevada medical report is not 14 || material to the Defendant’s decision, but rather could be material to a new application for 15 || benefits. (ECF No. 27 at 8.) The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the 16 || R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 17 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 18 || No. 27) is accepted and adopted in full. 19 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for remand (ECF No. 24) is denied. 20 It is further ordered that Defendant's motion to affirm (ECF No. 25) is granted. 21 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and 22 || close this case. 23 DATED THIS 15 Day of December 2020. 24 25 {LQ 26 REE 57 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28