Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00403/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00403-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

DELFINA MORENO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 10-cv-403-TUC-AWT (CRP)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Delfina Moreno filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social

Security Act for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social

Security Administration denying her application for disability insurance benefits and

social security income. This Court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge

Charles R. Pyle for all pretrial proceedings as well as a report and recommendation as

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and LRCiv 72.1

and 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of

Arizona. Doc. 12.

Magistrate Judge Pyle issued his Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on February

11, 2013, recommending that this Court reverse the decision of the Commissioner and

remand the case for an immediate award of benefits. Doc. 21 at 10. The R&R advised

the parties that they may file written objections within fourteen days from the date of

Case 4:10-cv-00403-AWT Document 22 Filed 07/22/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

service of a copy of the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No

objections were filed.

Having made an independent review of the record, this Court agrees with the findings

of the Magistrate Judge, as set forth in his thorough and well-reasoned R&R.1

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 21) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the

findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court.

2. Plaintiff’s claim for benefits is REMANDED to the Administrative Law Judge with

instructions to issue an immediate award of benefits, in accordance with the R&R.

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

DATED: this 22nd day of July, 2013.

1 Because no objections were filed, this Court is under no statutory obligation

to conduct de novo review of any issue in this case. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

(1985) (“The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] does not on its face require any review at all,

by either the district court or the court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject of an

objection.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(“A rule requiring automatic de novo review of findings and recommendations to which no

one objects would not save time or judicial resources. It would do just the opposite, and

defeat the whole purpose of referring the plea to the magistrate judge.”).

- 2 -

Case 4:10-cv-00403-AWT Document 22 Filed 07/22/13 Page 2 of 2