Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01611/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01611-1/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 – 15-cv-1611 DMS (BGS)

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

MARY ELIZABETH ROSE-TRAUGH,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-1611 DMS (BGS)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION IN 

ITS ENTIRETY; 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; AND

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security,

Defendant.

On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff Mary Elizabeth Rose-Traugh filed a complaint 

pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits. 

On November 2, 2015, the Commissioner filed an answer. On January 6, 2016, 

Rose-Traugh filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting reversal of the 

Administrative Law Judge’s final decision. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion 

for summary judgment and opposed Rose-Traugh’s motion. The Commissioner 

Case 3:15-cv-01611-DMS-BGS Document 24 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 15-cv-1611 DMS (BGS)

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

argued that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was supported by substantial 

evidence, free from legal error, and should be affirmed.

On June 24, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued 

a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that this Court grant the 

Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and deny Rose-Traugh’s motion. 

Judge Skomal ordered any objections to be filed by July 8, 2016, and any replies by 

July 22, 2016. To date, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested 

additional time to do so.

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 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.” 

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.” Id. “When no 

objections are filed, the de novo review is waived.” Marshall v. Astrue, No. 

08cv1735, 2010 WL 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting 

report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the 

report despite the opportunity to do so).

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on July 8, 2016. As noted, 

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 ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Having nonetheless conducted a de novo review of RoseTraugh’s and the Commissioner’s motions for summary judgment, the Court hereby 

Case 3:15-cv-01611-DMS-BGS Document 24 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 15-cv-1611 DMS (BGS)

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

approves and adopts the report in its entirety, and grants the Commissioner’s motion 

for summary judgment. The Court denies Rose-Traugh’s motion for summary 

judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-01611-DMS-BGS Document 24 Filed 07/20/16 Page 3 of 3