From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Home Wellness West v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States District Court, S.D. California
Nov 2, 2006
Case No. 04-CV-826 W (CAB) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 04-CV-826 W (CAB).

November 2, 2006


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS


On April 21, 2004, Plaintiff commenced this action seeking review of an administrative decision denying Medicare reimbursement for durable equipment Plaintiff purchased. In July and December 2005, the parties filed cross — motions for summary judgment, which the Court referred to the Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo. On September 28, 2006, Judge Bencivengo issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") suggesting that the Court should affirm the administrative decision. Plaintiff had until October 20, 2006, to file an objection. To date, neither party has submitted an objection or requested additional time. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report, GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment for the reasons explained therein.

The duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636. The district court "must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150(1985). When no objections are filed, however, the district court need not review the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that the district court had no obligation to review a report); see also United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) "makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise").

Here, Plaintiff has tendered no objections to the Report nor requested an extension of time in which to do so. The Court therefore accepts Judge Bencivengo's recommendation and ADOPTS the Report in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 26], DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 15] and AFFIRMS the administrative decision in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Home Wellness West v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States District Court, S.D. California
Nov 2, 2006
Case No. 04-CV-826 W (CAB) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2006)
Case details for

Home Wellness West v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Case Details

Full title:HOME WELLNESS WEST, Plaintiff, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. California

Date published: Nov 2, 2006

Citations

Case No. 04-CV-826 W (CAB) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2006)