Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00730/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00730-2/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

HELMUTS SKUJA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-cv-730-BAS(KSC)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING IN REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION ITS

ENTIRETY;

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; AND

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

[ECF Nos. 21, 16, 17]

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

On March 27, 2013, Plaintiff Helmuts Skuja filed a complaint under Section

405(g) of the Social Security Act, requesting judicial review of Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration’s final decision denying his claim for disability

benefits. Thereafter, the Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge

Karen S. Crawford, who issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on July 24,

2014, recommending that this Court: (1) deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary

- 1 - 13cv730

Case 3:13-cv-00730-BAS-KSC Document 23 Filed 08/15/14 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

judgment; and (2) grant Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin’s cross-motion for summary

judgment. The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on August 8, 2014. 

(R&R 18:27–19:5.) Both parties are represented by counsel, but to date, neither party

has filed any objections.

I. ANALYSIS

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[t]he

statute makesit 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 banc) (emphasis in original);

see also 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). “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. 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.”); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D.

Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither

party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols

v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on August 8, 2014, which is

fourteen days after Judge Crawford issued the R&R. However, no objections have

been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so. Consequently, the

Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the parties’ cross-motions for

- 2 - 13cv730

Case 3:13-cv-00730-BAS-KSC Document 23 Filed 08/15/14 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

summary judgment and the R&R, the Court concludesthatJudge Crawford’s reasoning

is sound and accurate in concluding that the administrative law judge’s denial of

Plaintiff’s benefits was supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. 

Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS

IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF No. 21), DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment (ECF No. 16), and GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for summary

judgment (ECF No. 17). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 14, 2014

Hon. Cynthia Bashant

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv730

Case 3:13-cv-00730-BAS-KSC Document 23 Filed 08/15/14 Page 3 of 3