O'Brien v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

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
Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1), challenging the denial of her Social Security
Disability Insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Honorable
Alison S. Bachus, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) (Doc. 15), recommending that the Court affirm the Administrative Law Judge’s
(“ALJ”) decision. Judge Bachus advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file
objections to the R&R and that failure to do so could be considered a waiver of the right to
review (Doc. Doc. 15 at 19–20) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 16), and Defendant filed a
Response (Doc. 17).
A district judge “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). When a party files a
timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R
that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires
specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United
Kelly O’Brien,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-25-00958-PHX-SPL
ORDER
Case 2:25-cv-00958-SPL Document 18 Filed 02/13/26 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
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It
follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific
objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial
economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or
arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s
decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622
(9th Cir. 2000).
The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently
developed record. Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations have also
been considered.
After a thorough review, Judge Bachus concluded there was no reversible error in
the ALJ’s application of collateral estoppel (Doc. 15 at 7–10), analysis of self-employment
earnings (Doc. 15 at 10–14), and assessment of her residual functional capacity (Doc. 15
at 14–19). After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches
the same conclusions reached by the magistrate judge. The R&R will be adopted in full.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bachus’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 15) is accepted and adopted by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 16) are overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration is affirmed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment
accordingly and terminate this case.
Dated this 13th day of February, 2026.
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00958-SPL Document 18 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 2