Mar v. Berryhill ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 BAY M., for Anthony M. (deceased), Case No.: 18-cv-1015 W (JLB) 14 Plaintiff, ORDER: 15 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 18] TO 16 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of AFFIRM THE COMMISSIONER’S Social Security Administration, 17 DECISION, Defendant. (2) DISMISSING CASE, AND 18 (3) ORDERING ENTRY OF 19 JUDGMENT 20 21 22 On May 21, 2018, Plaintiff Bay M., on behalf of Anthony M., her deceased 23 husband, filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s 24 final decision denying his application for a period of disability and disability insurance 25 benefits. The matter was referred to the Honorable Jill L. Burkhardt, United States 26 Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 27 Thereafter, the parties filed joint motions [Docs. 16, 17] for judicial review of the 28 Commissioner’s decision. 1 On August 5, 2019, Judge Burkhardt issued a Report and Recommendation 2 (“Report”), recommending the Court enter judgment affirming the Commissioner’s 3 decision and dismissing this action. (Report [Doc. 18] 38:5–7.) The Report also ordered 4 any objections filed within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Report. (Id. 5 38:8–10.) To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional 6 time in which to file an objection. 7 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 8 recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 9 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 10 filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 11 recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 12 (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must review 13 the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 14 otherwise”) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 15 Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no 16 obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established 17 within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 18 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an 19 objection is made to the R & R.”) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 20 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) 21 (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the 22 opportunity to do so, and holding that, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and 23 Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 24 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 25 The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Burkhardt’s recommendation, and ADOPTS 26 the Report [Doc. 18] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 27 incorporated herein by reference, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision, and 28 ORDERS this case DISMISSED and JUDGMENT entered in favor of Defendant. 1 The Clerk shall close the District Court case file. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ||Dated: August 23, 2019 \ 5 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28