Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00906/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00906-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405wc Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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

LAWRENCE MICHAEL DEMKO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv906-LAB (BLM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER OF

DISMISSAL

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

This social security appeal was referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major for a

report and recommendation (“R & R”). Judge Major’s R & R on the cross motions for

summary judgment recommends that Plaintiff Lawrence Michael Demko’s motion be denied

and the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) motion be granted.

Objections to the R & R were due on February 26, 2016. No objections were filed. 

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly

objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This

section does not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The “statute makes it clear that the district

- 1 - 15cv906-LAB

Case 3:15-cv-00906-LAB-BLM Document 20 Filed 03/17/16 Page 1 of 2
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

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 (9 Cir. th

2003). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R & R and agrees with its rationale and

conclusions. 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 16, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 15cv906-LAB

Case 3:15-cv-00906-LAB-BLM Document 20 Filed 03/17/16 Page 2 of 2