Opinion
22-cv-1838-W-BLM
12-14-2023
ALAN DANA LONG, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 20];
(2) AFFIRMING DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER;
(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MERITS BRIEF [DOC. 14]; AND
(4) DISMISSING CASE
THOMAS J. WHELAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff Alan Dana Long (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's (“Defendant”) final decision denying his application for Social Security Disability and Supplemental Income disability benefits. ([Doc. 1], “Complaint”.) The matter was referred to the Honorable Barbara L. Major, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Civ. L.R. 72.1(c), and General Order 707. ([Doc. 3].) Thereafter, Judge Major set a briefing schedule, wherein she ordered: “Plaintiff must file his merits brief on or before March 17, 2023. Defendant must file any opposition in response to Plaintiff's merits brief on or before April 7, 2023. Plaintiff must then file any reply in response to Defendant's opposition by April 21, 2023.” ([Doc. 9], “Scheduling Order” at 2.) The parties complied with this Scheduling Order. (See [Docs. 14, 16, and 18].)
On October 6, 2023, Judge Major issued a Report and Recommendation ([Doc. 20], “Report”), recommending the Court (1) deny Plaintiff's merits brief [Doc. 14] and (2) affirm the decision of Social Security Commissioner. In her Report, Judge Major ordered “any written objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Court . . . no later than October 27, 2023. . . . [F]ailure to file objections within the specific time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court's order.” (Report at 31 [emphasis in original].) The deadline for the parties to file their objections to the Report has now passed no objections have been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to file an objection. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636 (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2) (“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations”).
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 (“Rule 72(b)”) 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 de novo. E.g., United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) “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.”); Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added) (“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); Ragudo v. Saul, 411 F.Supp.3d 1125, 1129-30 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (citations omitted) (“The district court need not review de novo those portions of an R&R to which neither party objects.”); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F.Supp.2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (“[N]either party has objected to the Report. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.”). Instead, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 72(b)'s 1983 amendments instruct “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See, e.g., Nevarez v. Godwin, 2023 WL 5674407, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2023); Benavidez v. Cnty. of San Diego, 2022 WL 617313, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2022); Michael Louis W. v. Kijakazi, 2022 WL 2918613, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 25, 2022).
Having reviewed the Report, the Complaint, and the entire record in this case, the Court finds that Judge Major's Report is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, Court accepts Judge Major's recommendation and ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 20] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Merits Brief [Doc. 14]; affirms the decision of the Social Security Commissioner; and ORDERS the case DISMISSED.
The Clerk shall close the District Court case file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.