Opinion
Case No.: 17cv1689-W-RNB
07-06-2018
SHELLEY E. STONE, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 22], (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 16], AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 17]
On August 22, 2017, Shelley E. Stone ("Plaintiff") filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's ("Defendant") final decision denying her application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. The matter was referred to the Honorable Robert N. Block, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
On May 16, 2018, Judge Block issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion, deny Defendant's motion, and that judgment be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Report [Doc. 22] 11:9-13.) The Report also ordered any objections filed within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Report. (Id. 11:14-16.) 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 Block's recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 22] 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 motion for summary judgment [Doc. 17], and ORDERS as follows:
• Judgment shall be entered reversing the Social Security Commissioner's decision.
• This matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 6, 2018
/s/_________
Hon. Thomas J. Whelan
United States District Judge