Opinion
Case No.: 18-cv-2078 W (MDD)
09-13-2019
PHILLIP JACOB KORNGOLD, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 21];
(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 16];
(3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 19]; AND
(4) REMANDING CASE
On September 7, 2018, Plaintiff Phillip Korngold filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. (See Compl. [Doc. 1].) The matter was referred to the Honorable Mitchell D. Dembin, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (See Sept. 10, 2018 Order [Doc. 3].) Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Pl.'s Mot. [Doc. 16]; Def.'s Mot. [Doc. 19].)
On August 29, 2019, Judge Dembin issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending the Court remand the case for further proceedings. (Report [Doc. 21] 8:15-16.) The Report also ordered any objections filed no later than September 12, 2019, and any reply filed by September 19, 2019. (Id. 8:21-9:6.) To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to file an objection.
A district court's duties concerning a magistrate judge's report and recommendation and a respondent's objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) "makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise") (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge's report). This rule of law is well-established within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.") (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so, and holding that, "accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety."); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).
The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Dembin's recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 21] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 16], DENIES Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. 19], and REMANDS the matter for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 13, 2019
/s/_________
Hon. Thomas J. Whelan
United States District Judge