Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02842/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02842-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

PAULA A. NORRIS-GREGO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-2842 W (NLS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

[DOC. 27] AND GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS [DOC. 9]

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

On December 6, 2011, Plaintiff Paula A. Norris-Greco filed this lawsuit seeking

judicial review of her second application for disability benefits under Title II of the

Social Security Act. (Compl. [Doc. 1].) The matter was referred to the Honorable Nita

L. Stormes, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and L.R. 72.1. 

Thereafter, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that this

Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction. (MTD [Doc. 9] 3-5.) On April 2,

2012, Judge Stormes recommended that Defendant’s motion be granted and that this

- 1 - 11cv02842w

Case 3:11-cv-02842-W-NLS Document 28 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 3
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

action be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Previous Report [Doc. 15].)

On May 17, 2012 this Court rejected Judge Stormes’ recommendation and remanded

the matterto Judge Stormes for anotherreport and recommendation regarding whether

Plaintiff’s “first and second applications assert the ‘same claim’ for administrative res

judicata purposes.” (Order [Doc. 18] 5-6.) 

On December 5, 2012, Judge Stormes issued a second Report and

Recommendation (“Report”), again recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s

motion to dismiss. (Report, [Doc. 27] 1.) The Report also ordered that any objections

were to be filed by December 31, 2012, and any reply filed by January 4, 2012. (Id. at

7.) 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

reviewthe magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made,

but not otherwise”)(emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1226 (D. Arizona 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 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 RenyaTapia, 328 F.3d 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005)

(Lorenz, J.) (adopted Report without review because neither party filed objections to

the Report despite the opportunity to do so, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the

- 2 - 11cv02842w

Case 3:11-cv-02842-W-NLS Document 28 Filed 02/25/13 Page 2 of 3
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

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 Stormes’ recommendation, and ADOPTS

the Report in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated

herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction. [Doc. 9]. The Clerk of the Court shall close the district

court case file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2013

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv02842w

Case 3:11-cv-02842-W-NLS Document 28 Filed 02/25/13 Page 3 of 3