Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00238/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00238-1/pdf.json

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

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

I 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

'. .. v .~. o. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVE JASON MILLER, CASE NO. 13-CV-238-BEN (NLS) 

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

vs. 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

MICHAEL J. AS TRUE (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

Commissioner of Sociaf Security, fC8~~r~TTION FOR SUMMARY 

,Defendant. [Docket Nos. 21, 23, 24] 

On January 29,2013, PlaintiffSteve Jason Miller commenced an action seeking 

judicial review ofa decision ofthe CommissionerofSocial Security denying Plaintiff's 

application for Disabled Adult Child benefits. (Docket No.1). Plaintiff filed a Motion 

for Summary Judgment on January 27, 2014. (Docket No. 21). Defendant filed a 

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on February 27, 2014. (Docket No. 23). On 

June 9, 2014, Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a thoughtful and thorough 

Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary 

Judgment be denied and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. 

(Docket No. 24). Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due June 

- 1 13cv238 

Case 3:13-cv-00238-BEN-NLS Document 25 Filed 06/26/14 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 

.... -.-.:':- ." ~,~. 

23, 2014. (Jd.) Neither party has filed any objections. For the relsonstpat,follow, the 0­

Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. ." -:.­ - A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recoIIlIJlendeddisposition" of 

a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. FED. R. CIV. P.- 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(I). "The district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 

recommendation] that has been properly objected to." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3}.­..­

However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district 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 (9th Cir. 2003) (en 

bane) (emphasis in original); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th 

Cir. 2005). ''Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, 

de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

In the absence of any objections, the Court fully ADOPTS Judge Sto~e,s' 

Report and Recommendation. Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is 

GRANTED, and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: Jun~14 r 

- 2- 13cv238 

Case 3:13-cv-00238-BEN-NLS Document 25 Filed 06/26/14 Page 2 of 2