Gonzalez v. Saul ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA SONIA M. GONZALEZ, Case No.: 2:17-cv-03118-APG-NJK 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation, Denying Motion to v. Remand, and Granting Motion to Affirm 6]/ ANDREW SAUL, [ECF Nos. 19, 21, 27] 7 Defendant 8 On November 15, 2019, Magistrate Judge Koppe recommended that I deny plaintiff Sonia Gonzalez’s motion to remand and grant defendant Andrew Saul’s motion to affirm. ECF 10|| No. 27. Gonzalez did not file an objection. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to 12}|““make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made’); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (‘‘the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 15}| de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 16 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation 17|| (ECF No. 27) is accepted, plaintiff Sonia Gonzalez’s motion to remand (ECF No. 19) is 18] DENIED, and defendant Andrew Saul’s motion to affirm (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED. The clerk of court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 20 DATED this 4th day of December, 2019. 21 22 ANDREW P. GORDON 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE