Newman v. Berryhill ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE NEWMAN, et al., Case No.: 3:19-cv-00036-WQH-MSB 12 ORDER Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner 15 of the Social Security 16 Administration, 17 Defendant. 18 19 HAYES, Judge: 20 The matters before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by the 21 Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 18). 22 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 23 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 24 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 25 report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 26 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 27 The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation 28 to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 1 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Neither the 2 || Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 3 || findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). 4 On July 27, 2020, Plaintiff George Newman filed a Supplemental Document. (ECF 5 20). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant was properly served and requests entry of default 6 ||judgment. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the 7 || submissions of the parties. 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) is 9 || ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff George Newman’s request for entry of default 10 ||judgment is DENIED. This action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court 11 close the case. 12 |} Dated: August 14, 2020 BME: ie Z. A a 13 Hon. William Q. Hayes 14 United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28