Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02493/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02493-1/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

LORI MERRYFLORIAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-2493-IEG (DHB)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING IN FULL REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION ;

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; AND

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

[Doc. Nos. 20, 14, 15]

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

On October 15, 2012, Plaintiff Lori Merryflorian 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 her

claim for disability benefits. (Doc. No. 1.) Thereafter, the Court referred this

matter to United States Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick, who issued a Report and

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

summary judgment and grant Defendant Michael J. Astrue’s cross-motion for

summary judgment. (Doc. No. 20.) The time for filing objections to the R&R

expired on August 29, 2013. (R&R 12:5–7.) Both parties are represented by

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

- 1 - 12cv2493

Case 3:12-cv-02493-IEG-DHB Document 21 Filed 09/06/13 Page 1 of 2
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

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). “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.).

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on August 29, 2013. 

However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional

time to do so. Accordingly, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Having conducted a de novo review of the parties’

cross-motions for summary judgment and the R&R, 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. 20), DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment (Doc. No. 14), and GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for summary

judgment (Doc. No. 15).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 5, 2013

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv2493

Case 3:12-cv-02493-IEG-DHB Document 21 Filed 09/06/13 Page 2 of 2