Salin v. Berryhill ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 CAROLYN ANNETTE SALIN, Case No. 3:18-cv-00494-MMD-CBC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 6 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 7 Commissioner of Social Security, 8 Defendant. 9 10 This case involves the judicial review of an administrative action by the 11 Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Carolyn Salin’s 12 application for disability insurance and supplemental security income payments. Before 13 the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United 14 States Magistrate Judge Carla B. Carry (ECF No. 21) relating to Plaintiff’s motion to 15 remand (ECF No. 15) and Defendant’s cross-motion to affirm (ECF Nos. 18, 19). Judge 16 Carry recommended denying Plaintiff’s motion for remand and granting Defendant’s 17 cross-motion to affirm. (ECF No. 21 at 1.) Plaintiff had until September 4, 2019, to file an 18 objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as 19 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, denies Plaintiff’s motion for remand, and 20 grants Defendant’s cross-motion to affirm. 21 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 23 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 24 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 25 recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. Where a party fails to object, however, 26 the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 27 subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth 28 Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s 1 || report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. 2 || Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 3 || employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 4 || objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 5 || Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit's decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 6 || district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 7 || Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the Court may 8 || accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 9 |} 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no 10 || objection was filed). 11 While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Carry’s recommendation, the Court will 12 || conduct a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Carry found 13 || that the ALJ did not err in assessing Plaintiffs residual functional capacity and that the 14 || ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for finding Plaintiff's statements 15 || concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms less than 16 || credible. (ECF No. 21 at 7-13.) Having reviewed the R&R and the underlying briefing, the 17 || Court agrees with Judge Carry. 18 It is therefore ordered that Judge Carry’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19 |} 21) is adopted in full. 20 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion to remand (ECF No. 15) is denied. 21 It is further ordered that Defendant’s cross-motion to affirm (ECF Nos. 18, 19) is 22 || granted. The Social Security Commissioner's decision is affirmed. 23 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and 24 || close this case. 25 DATED THIS 10 day of September 2019. 27 MIRANDA M-DU-— UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE