Opinion
23-cv-1611 W (DDL)
08-12-2024
ANTHONY EDWARD G., Plaintiff, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 22], (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION [DOC. 11], (3) AFFIRMING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER AND (4) DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE COMMISSIONER
Hon. Thomas J. Whelan, United States District Judge
On August 31, 2023, Plaintiff Anthony Edward G. filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying his application for Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income disability benefits. (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 1.) On September 25, 2023 the matter was transferred to the Honorable David D. Leshner, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (See Minute Order [Doc. 4].)
On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed his summary-judgment motion [Doc. 11]. On April 4, 2024, the Commissioner filed his opposition [Doc. 19] and on April 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed his reply [Doc. 21]. On July 17, 2024, Judge Leshner issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Court (1) deny Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, (2) affirm the Commissioner's final decision and (3) direct entry of judgment in the Commissioner's favor. (Report [Doc. 22] 22:10-14.) The Report also ordered any objections filed no later than August 1, 2024 and any reply filed no later than August 9, 2024. (Id. 22:15-17.) The Report also advised the parties that “[f]ailure to timely file objections may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal. [Citation omitted.]” (Id. at 22:17-20.) 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 Leshner'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 DENIES Plaintiff's summary-judgment motion [Doc. 11], AFFIRMS the Commissioner's final decision and ORDERS that judgement be entered in favor of the Commissioner.
The Clerk shall close the District Court case file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.