Cox v. Berryhill ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 * * * 9 DOUGLAS WAYNE COX, Case No. 2:18-cv-02413-RFB-VCF 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner of Social Security 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 6] of the 16 Honorable Cam Ferenbach, United States Magistrate Judge, entered July 12, 2019. 17 A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 18 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific 19 written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is 21 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 22 findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local 23 Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct 24 “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 25 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due 26 by July 26, 2019. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case 27 and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. 28 . . . 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 6] is 2 | ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that [5] Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen is DENIED. 4 5 DATED: August 16, 2019. 6 RICHARD F. > Il 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-