Opinion
23-cv-1655 W (KSC)
08-12-2024
OUDREE E-S., Plaintiff, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 15], (2) VACATING THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION AND (3) REMANDING CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Hon. Thomas J. Whelan, United States District Judge.
On September 8, 2023, Plaintiff Oudree E-S. filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying Plaintiff's application for supplemental security income disability benefits. (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 6.) The matter was referred to the Honorable Karen S. Crawford, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff's merits brief was filed [Doc. 12]. On February 23, 2024, the Commissioner's responding brief was filed [Doc. 13]. On July 18, 2024, Judge Crawford issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Court (1) vacate the Commissioner's final decision and (2) remand the case for further proceedings consistent with the Report. (Report [Doc. 15] 7:10-13.) The Report also ordered any objections filed within the time limits allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). (Id. 7:14-15.) Rule 72(b) provides:
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 party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.
Accordingly, the deadline to file objections to the Report was August 1, 2024. 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 Crawford's recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 15] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court VACATES the Commissioner's final decision and ORDERS the case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report.
The Clerk shall close the District Court case file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.