Dykstra 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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Patricia D Dykstra,
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-08113-PCT-SHD
ORDER
At issue before the Court is the denial of Plaintiff’s claims for Supplemental
Security Income benefits under the Social Security Act. The Magistrate Judge to whom
this case was assigned issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that
the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be reversed and the matter be
remanded to the Social Security Administration for rehearing. (Doc. 27). Neither party has
objected to the R&R and the time for filing objections has run.
This Court “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). It is “clear that
the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de
novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d
1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo
review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”);
Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th
Case 3:25-cv-08113-SHD Document 28 Filed 06/05/26 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
Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s]
recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are not required to conduct
“any review at 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]
to which objection is made.”).
There being no objections,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 27) is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner is
REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for
further administrative proceedings. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
accordingly.
Dated this 5th day of June, 2026.
Case 3:25-cv-08113-SHD Document 28 Filed 06/05/26 Page 2 of 2