1
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 Eric Schiro, No. CV-25-00474-TUC-AMM
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
13
Defendant.
14
15 On July 17, 2026, Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and
16 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court reverse the Commissioner of Social
17 Security Administration’s decision and remand the matter to the agency for a new hearing
18 and decision. (Doc. 20.) Judge Aguilera notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days to
19 file any written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation. (Id. at 8.) Neither
20 party filed an objection, and the time to do so has now passed.
21 A district court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is
22 not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28
23 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
24 portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
25 objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
26 face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory
27 Committee Notes 1983 Addition. A district judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole
28 or in part, the findings or recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1 The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the parties’ briefs, and the
2|| record. The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the findings and recommendation.
3 Accordingly,
4 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 20.)
5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED,
6|| and this matter is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further
|| proceedings. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
8 Dated this 3rd day of August, 2026.
9
11 ~ Honorable Angela M. Martinez
D United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.