Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00520/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00520-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

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

Nathan King,

Plaintiff,

v.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security, 

Defendant. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 09-520 TUC DCB(JCG)

O R D E R

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court, when reviewing a Report and Recommendation of a

Magistrate Judge, are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). When the parties object to a Report and Recommendation (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 objections are filed, the district court does not need to 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).

Report and Recommendation

On April 13, 2010, the Honorable Jennifer C. Guerin, United States Magistrate Judge,

filed a R&R in this action. The R&R advises the Court to grant the Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss

Case 4:09-cv-00520-DCB Document 26 Filed 05/05/10 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

- 2 -

the action because the matter has been favorably resolved by the Commissioner. Accordingly,

there has been no objection to the R&R. 

The Court has reviewed the R&R and considers it to be thorough and well-reasoned; it

is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-

618 (9th Cir. 1989). The R&R shall, therefore, be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Court adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 25] is adopted as the

opinion of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 24] is

GRANTED consistent with the Report and Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 4th day of May, 2010.

Case 4:09-cv-00520-DCB Document 26 Filed 05/05/10 Page 2 of 2