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

Paul Felix Mason, III,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant.

No. CV-18-08016-PCT-ESW

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Paul Felix Mason’s (“Mr. Mason”) motion 

for reconsideration. (Doc. 17.) On July 20, 2018 the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and 

Recommendation with this Court recommending that the motion be denied. (Doc. 18.) 

On August 8, 2018, Mr. Mason filed his Objection (Doc. 19) to the Report and 

Recommendation. After considering the Report and Recommendation and Mr. Mason’s 

Objection thereto, the Court now issues the following ruling.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court 

“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 

findings or recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate 

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th 

Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 

1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of
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

conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all 

objections to those findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 

1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in 

considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id.

DISCUSSION1

As a preliminary matter, Mr. Mason’s motion for reconsideration is untimely. 

Absent good cause shown, motions for reconsideration must be filed no later than 

fourteen days after the date of filing of the Order that is the subject of the motion. LRCiv. 

7.2(g)(2). Here, Mr. Mason filed his motion for reconsideration on July 12, 2018, 16 days 

after the Court’s June 26, 2018 Order adopting the April 11, 2018 Report and 

Recommendation. 

Not only is Mr. Mason’s motion for reconsideration untimely, but his Objection to 

the July 20, 2018 Report and Recommendation is also untimely. The July 20, 2018 

Report and Recommendation allotted Mr. Mason “fourteen days from the date of service 

of a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written 

objections with the Court.” (Doc 18.) Mr. Mason filed his Objection on August 8, 2018, 

19 days from the July 20, 2018 filing of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation. Thus, the Objection is untimely.

Even if Mr. Mason timely filed his Objection, he does not object to any issue 

addressed in the Report and Recommendation, thereby relieving the Court of its 

obligation to conduct a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation. See Turner, 158 F.3d at 455; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 

149 (1985) (explaining that § 636(b)(1)(C) does not require review “of any issue that is 

not the subject of an objection”). The essence of Mr. Mason’s motion is that he never 

received notice that this case closed on June 26, 2018, and that he is “a little confused” as 

to why he is permitted to respond to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

when the case is closed. (Doc. 19.) Because he does not object to a specific finding or 

 1

The procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s previous 

Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 12.)
- 3 -

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

recommendation in the Report and Recommendation, the Court is relieved of its 

obligation to conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation.

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 

specific objections having been made by Mr. Mason thereto, the Court hereby 

incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 18.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

(Doc. 17.)

Dated this 4th day of September, 2018.

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge