Opinion
Case No. 14-cv-2008-BAS-JMA
12-15-2015
LINWOOD SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER:
(1) AD OPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN ITS ENTIRETY;
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On August 26, 2014, Plaintiff Linwood Sutton filed a complaint under Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, requesting judicial review of Acting Social Security Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin's ("Defendant") final decision denying his application for disability benefits. (ECF No. 1.) Thereafter, the Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler. On September 8, 2015, Judge Adler issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report" or "R&R") recommending that this Court: (1) deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and (2) grant Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 19.) The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on September 23, 2015. (R&R 13:21-23.) Both parties are represented by counsel, but to date, neither party has filed any objections.
I. ANALYSIS
The Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. "The statute makes it clear," however, "that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see also 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). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is well-established in 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[n] R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R."); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).
In this case, the deadline for filing objections was September 23, 2015. However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and the magistrate judge's R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Adler's reasoning is sound. The R&R is thorough, well-reasoned, and correctly concludes that the administrative law judge's denial of Plaintiff's benefits claim was supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
II. CONCLUSION & ORDER
Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF No. 19), DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16), and GRANTS Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17).
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 15, 2015
/s/ _________
Hon. Cynthia Bashant
United States District Judge