Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00156/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00156-1/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Amy Ann Thomas, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Defendant.

No. CV-15-00156-TUC-RCC

ORDER 

 Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 

(Doc. 2) and Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman’s Report and Recommendation (R & 

R) (Doc. 10). The Court accepts and adopts Judge Bowman’s R & R (Doc. 10) as 

findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court. 

The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court 

may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court 

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is 

made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When 

no objection is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. 

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Therefore to the extent that no objection 

Case 4:15-cv-00156-RCC-LAB Document 15 Filed 06/25/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

has been made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 

1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so 

on appeal); see also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v. 

United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is 

filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 

in order to accept the recommendation). 

Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R (Doc. 10). This Court considers 

Judge Bowman’s R & R to be thorough and well-reasoned. After review of the record, 

the Court will adopt the R & R of Magistrate Judge Bowman (Doc. 10). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 10) is accepted and adopted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied. Within 30 days of the date this Order is filed, Plaintiff must 

pay the filing fee. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within 30 days, the Clerk of the 

Court must enter judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and without 

further notice to Plaintiff. 

 This matter will remain referred to Judge Bowman for the remaining pretrial 

proceedings in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72, and LRCiv 72.1, and 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court 

for the District of Arizona. 

 Dated this 24th day of June, 2015. 

Case 4:15-cv-00156-RCC-LAB Document 15 Filed 06/25/15 Page 2 of 2