Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01407/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01407-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

MYASSAR ELIAS NADDOUR,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-cv-1407-BAS(WVG)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING IN REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION 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, 11, 13]

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

On June 13, 2013, Plaintiff Myassar Elias Naddour filed a complaint appealing

the decision of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denying him disability insurance

benefits. The Court then referred this matter to United States Magistrate William V.

Gallo, who issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on August 4, 2014,

recommending that this Court: (1) grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; (2)

deny Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin’s cross-motion for summary judgment; and (3)

- 1 - 13cv1407

Case 3:13-cv-01407-BAS-WVG Document 18 Filed 09/23/14 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

remand this action for further proceedings. The time for filing objections to the R&R

expired on September 4, 2014. (R&R 48:1–5.) 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 September 4, 2014. 

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 summary judgment and the R&R, the Court concludes

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

- 2 - 13cv1407

Case 3:13-cv-01407-BAS-WVG Document 18 Filed 09/23/14 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

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

summary judgment. 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. 11), DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary

judgment (ECF No. 13), and REMANDS this action for further proceedings consistent

with this order and the R&R. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 23, 2014

Hon. Cynthia Bashant

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv1407

Case 3:13-cv-01407-BAS-WVG Document 18 Filed 09/23/14 Page 3 of 3