Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02654/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02654-1/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

16-CV-2654 W (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

ELEAZAR DUARTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-CV-2654 W (BGS)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 19]; 

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [DOC. 15];

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [DOC. 17]; AND

(4) REMANDING CASE

On October 26, 2016, Eleazar Duarte (“Plaintiff”) filed this action seeking judicial 

review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying his claim for 

disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income under Titles II and 

XVI of the Social Security Act. (See Compl. [Doc. 1].) The matter was referred to the 

Honorable Bernard Skomal, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and 

recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (October 31, 2016 Order [Doc. 4].) 

Case 3:16-cv-02654-W-BGS Document 20 Filed 03/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-CV-2654 W (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

Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 15]; 

Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 17].) 

On February 8, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Skomal issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment, deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and remand the 

case for further proceedings. (R&R [Doc. 19] 23–24.) Judge Skomal ordered that any 

objections to the R&R be filed no later than February 22, 2018. (Id.) No objections were 

filed. There has been no request for additional time to object.

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the 

district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (reasoning that 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 

judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise”); 

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). This rule of law is well-established within both 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[.]”) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 

946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting the R&R without review because neither 

party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 

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

In light of the foregoing, the Court accepts Judge Skomal’s recommendation and 

ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 19] in its entirety. 

//

//

Case 3:16-cv-02654-W-BGS Document 20 Filed 03/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-CV-2654 W (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

For the reasons stated in the R&R, which is incorporated herein by reference, the 

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 15], DENIES 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 17], and REMANDS the case to the 

Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the R&R. Upon 

remand, the Clerk shall close the district court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-02654-W-BGS Document 20 Filed 03/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3