Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02905/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02905-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

– 1 – 14cv2905 

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 

GUILLERMINA FRANCISCO, 

 Plaintiff, 

Case No. 14-cv-02905-BAS(WVG) 

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 

ENTIRETY;

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT;

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 

AND 

(4) REMANDING FOR 

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 

(ECF Nos. 17, 14, 15) 

 v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security 

 Defendant. 

On December 9, 2014, plaintiff Guillermina Francisco (“Plaintiff”) filed a 

complaint against Carolyn W. Colvin (“Defendant”), Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security, seeking judicial review of Defendant’s decision to deny Plaintiff disability 

insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Title II and Title 

XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 301, et seq. The Court then referred this 

matter to United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo, who issued a Report and 

Case 3:14-cv-02905-BAS-WVG Document 18 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 3
 – 2 – 14cv2905 

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 

Recommendation (“R&R”) on February 8, 2016, recommending that Plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment be granted, that Defendant’s motion be denied, and 

that the matter be remanded for further administrative proceedings. 

The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on February 23, 2016. (R&R 

at p. 29.) 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 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.” 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 February 23, 2016. 

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 

Case 3:14-cv-02905-BAS-WVG Document 18 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 3
 – 3 – 14cv2905 

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 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of

the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and the R&R, the Court concludes 

that Judge Gallo’s reasoning is sound and accurate in recommending that this Court 

grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant’s cross-motion for 

summary judgment, and remand this action to the Administrative Law Judge for 

further proceedings. 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. 17), GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment (ECF No. 14), DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 15), and REMANDS this action for further proceedings 

consistent with this order and the R&R. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 10, 2016 

Case 3:14-cv-02905-BAS-WVG Document 18 Filed 03/10/16 Page 3 of 3