Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01423/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01423-2/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

17cv1423-W-RNB

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

CARMINE B. FUDGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration, Acting Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv1423-W-RNB

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 19],

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [DOC. 14], AND

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [DOC. 15]

On July 13, 2017, Carmine B. Fudge (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit seeking judicial 

review of the Social Security Commissioner’s (“Defendant”) final decision denying his

application for Supplemental Security Income. The matter was referred to the Honorable 

Robert N. Block, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross-motions for 

summary judgment.

Case 3:17-cv-01423-W-RNB Document 20 Filed 07/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv1423-W-RNB

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 June 25, 2018, Judge Block issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), 

recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion, deny Defendant’s motion, and that 

judgment be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this 

matter for further administrative proceedings. (Report [Doc. 19] 9:8–11.) The Report 

also ordered any objections filed within 14 days after being served with a copy of the 

Report. (Id. 9:12–14.) 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 Block’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the 

Report [Doc. 19] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 

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

Case 3:17-cv-01423-W-RNB Document 20 Filed 07/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv1423-W-RNB

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], DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 15], and

ORDERS as follows:

• Judgment shall be entered reversing the Social Security Commissioner’s decision.

• This matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01423-W-RNB Document 20 Filed 07/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3