Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00041/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00041-1/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

17-cv-0041 W (JLB)

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

ANNE LORING CASH,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-cv-0041 W (JLB)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 20],

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTON 

[DOC. 12], AND (3) DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION 

[DOC. 15]

On January 10, 2017, Plaintiff Anne Loring Cash filed this lawsuit seeking judicial 

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

period of disability and disability insurance benefits. The matter was referred to the 

Honorable Jill L. Burkhardt, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and 

recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Thereafter, the parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment.

Case 3:17-cv-00041-W-JLB Document 21 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-cv-0041 W (JLB)

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 January 26, 2017, Judge Burkhardt issued a Report and Recommendation 

(“Report”), recommending the Court (1) grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s motion 

for summary judgment, (2) deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and 

(3) remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with the Report. (Report [Doc.

20] 19:17–22.) The Report also ordered any objections filed no later than February 9, 

2018, and any reply filed by February 16, 2018. (Id. 19:23–20:6.) 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 Burkhardt’s recommendation, and ADOPTS 

the Report [Doc. 20] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 

Case 3:17-cv-00041-W-JLB Document 21 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-cv-0041 W (JLB)

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

incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN 

PART Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 12], DENIES Defendant’s crossmotion for summary judgment [Doc. 15], and ORDERS the case REMANDED for 

proceedings consistent with the Report. 

The Clerk shall close the District Court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00041-W-JLB Document 21 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3