Quinones v. Berryhill ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 CORIANNE MARIE QUINONES, Case No.: 19-cv-0274 W (BLM) 14 Plaintiff, ORDER: 15 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 17], 16 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECURITY, 17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY Defendant. JUDGMENT [DOC. 14], AND 18 (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 19 CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 15] 20 21 22 On February 6, 2019, Plaintiff Corianne Marie Quinones filed this lawsuit seeking 23 judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying her claim 24 for supplemental security income. The matter was referred to the Honorable Barbara L. 25 Major, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. 26 § 636(b)(1)(B). Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 27 On August 14, 2019, Judge Major issued a Report and Recommendation 28 (“Report”), recommending the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and 1 grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (Report [Doc. 17] 17:9–11.) 2 The Report also ordered any objections filed no later than August 30, 2019, and any reply 3 filed by September 13, 2019. (Id. 17:12–16.) To date, no objection has been filed, nor 4 has there been a request for additional time in which to file an objection. 5 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 6 recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 8 filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 9 recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 10 (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must review 11 the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 12 otherwise”) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 13 Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no 14 obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established 15 within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 16 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an 17 objection is made to the R & R.”) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 18 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) 19 (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the 20 opportunity to do so, and holding that, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and 21 Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 22 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 23 The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Major’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the 24 Report [Doc. 17] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 25 incorporated herein by reference, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary 26 judgment [Doc. 14] and GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment 27 [Doc. 15]. 28 1 The Clerk shall close the District Court case file. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: September 4, 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