Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01595/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01595-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANTHONY WILLMAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-1595-IEG (RBB)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING IN FULL REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; 

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

(4) REMANDING CASE FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

[Doc. Nos. 36, 29, 30]

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

On June 27, 2012, Plaintiff Michael Anthony Willman filed a complaint

under Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, requesting judicial review of the

final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that

denied his claim for disability-insurance benefits. (Doc. No. 1.) Thereafter, the

Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks, who

issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court: (1)

grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (2) deny

- 1 - 12cv1595

Case 3:12-cv-01595-IEG-RBB Document 37 Filed 09/09/13 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

Defendant Michael J. Astrue’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and (3) remand

this case to the Social Security Administration for the administrative law judge to

explain his reasons for determining that Plaintiff was not credible and the effect that

determination has on his claim for benefits. (Doc. No. 36.) The time for filing

objections to the R&R expired on August 30, 2013. (R&R 20:1–11.) Both parties

are represented by counsel, but to date, neither party has filed any objections.

DISCUSSION

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 on August 30, 2013. 

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

- 2 - 12cv1595

Case 3:12-cv-01595-IEG-RBB Document 37 Filed 09/09/13 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

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 Brooks’ reasoning sound and accurate. Therefore, the Court hereby

approves and ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS

IN FULL the R&R (Doc. No. 36), GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 29), DENIES Defendant’s

cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 30), and REMANDS this case to the

Social Security Administration for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2013

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv1595

Case 3:12-cv-01595-IEG-RBB Document 37 Filed 09/09/13 Page 3 of 3