Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00678/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00678-1/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 (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

-1- 06cv678

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLA A. LONGERBEAM,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO.06-CV-678 W (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING REPORT

& RECOMMENDATIONS

vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

On April 12, 2006, Plaintiff Carla Longerbeam commenced this action seeking

review of an administrative decision denying Social Security disability benefits. On

referral, the Hon. Jan M. Adler issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”)

suggesting that the court grant Longerbeam’s motion for reversal and/or remand and

deny the government’s motion for summary judgment upholding the decision. Parties

had until August 3, 2007, to file objections. To date, neither party has submitted an

objection or requested additional time. Accordingly, the court will ADOPT the Report

in its entirety, GRANT Longerbeam’s motion, and REMAND to the Social Security

Administration for further proceedings.

Case 3:06-cv-00678-W-JMA Document 18 Filed 08/15/07 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

-2- 06cv678

The duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

28 U.S.C. § 636. The district court “must make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)( c); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150(1985). When no objections are filed, however, the

district court need not review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that the

district court had no obligation to review a report); see also United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc) (holding that 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(c) “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”).

Here, the government has filed no objections to the Report nor requested an

extension of time in which to do so. The court therefore accepts Judge Adler’s

recommendation and ADOPTS the Report in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the

Report, the court GRANTS Longerbeam’s motion for remand, REVERSES the

decision of the ALJ, and REMANDS the case to the Social Security Administration for

further proceedings. The Clerk shall close the case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 15, 2007

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00678-W-JMA Document 18 Filed 08/15/07 Page 2 of 2