1 WO
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 Jasmine Leilani Finder, No. CV-25-03513-PHX-SHD
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
13
Defendant.
14
15 At issue before the Court is the denial of Plaintiff’s application for disability
16 insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. The Magistrate Judge to whom this case
17 was assigned issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the final
18 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be vacated and the matter remanded to
19 the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 18).
20 Neither party has objected to the R&R and the time for filing objections has run.
21 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that
23 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de
24 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
25 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d
26 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo
27 review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”);
28 Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th
1 || Cuir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s]
2 || recommendations to which the parties object.’’). District courts are not required to conduct
3|| “any review all... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court
|| shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation]
6 || to which objection is made.”).
7 There being no objections,
8 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 18) is accepted.
9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner is
VACATED, and this case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further
11 || administrative proceedings. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
12 Dated this 16th day of April, 2026.
13
14 □
16 / i
"7 H le Sharad H. Desai
18 United States District Judge
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.