Opinion
Case No.: 15-CV-2436-W (JLB)
02-23-2017
CARL ANDREW MARSHALL, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 23];
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 17]; AND
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 18]
On October 28, 2015, Plaintiff Carl Andrew Marshall filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying his claim for disability insurance benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. (See Compl. [Doc. 1].) The matter was referred to the Honorable Jill L. Burkhardt, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (Nov. 19, 2015 Order [Doc. 5].) Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Pl.'s Mot. [Doc. 17]; Def.'s Mot. [Doc. 18].)
On January 31, 2017, Judge Burkhardt issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. (R&R [Doc. 23].) Judge Burkhardt ordered that any objections be filed by February 14, 2017. (Id. [Doc. 23] 24:27-25:2.) No objections were filed. There has been no request for additional time to object.
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) (reasoning 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"); 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[.]") (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting the R&R without review because neither party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).
Accordingly, the Court accepts Judge Burkhardt's recommendation and ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 23] in its entirety. // // // //
For the reasons stated in the R&R, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 17] and GRANTS Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. 18].
Judgment is entered for Defendant. The clerk is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 23, 2017
/s/_________
Hon. Thomas J. Whelan
United States District Judge