McNicol 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 his disability
insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. The Honorable James F. Metcalf, United
States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 25),
recommending that the Court affirm the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision.
Judge Metcalf 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. 25 at 21–22) (citing U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).
Plaintiff has filed Objections (Doc. 26).
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
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It
James McNicol,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-25-08007-PCT-SPL
ORDER
Case 3:25-cv-08007-SPL Document 27 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
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 Metcalf concluded there was no reversible error in
the ALJ’s decision regarding the assessment of Plaintiff’s alcoholism (Doc. 25 at 5–9), the
evaluation of Plaintiff’s mental impairments (Doc. 25 at 9–15), and the identification of
available jobs (Doc. 25 at 15–21). 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 Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 25) is accepted and adopted by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 26) 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 3:25-cv-08007-SPL Document 27 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 2