Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01823/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01823-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

16-cv-1823 W (MDD)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANICE BARBARA HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-1823 W (MDD)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 18],

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [DOC. 14], AND

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [DOC. 15]

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Janice Barbara Hamilton filed this lawsuit seeking 

judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying her claim 

for disability insurance benefits. The matter was referred to the Honorable Mitchell D. 

Dembin, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary 

judgment.

Case 3:16-cv-01823-W-MDD Document 19 Filed 08/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-cv-1823 W (MDD)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On August 2, 2017, Judge Dembin issued a Report and Recommendation 

(“Report”), recommending the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and 

grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (Report [Doc. 18] 20:20–21.) 

The Report also ordered any objections filed by August 16, 2017, and any reply filed by 

August 23, 2017. (Id. at 20:25–21:3.) 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 Dembin’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the 

Report [Doc. 18] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 

incorporated herein by reference, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

Case 3:16-cv-01823-W-MDD Document 19 Filed 08/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-cv-1823 W (MDD)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

judgment [Doc. 14] and GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment 

[Doc. 15]. The Clerk shall close the District Court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01823-W-MDD Document 19 Filed 08/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3