Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02830/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02830-0/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

14CV2830 BEN (BLM)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOLANDA AVILES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant.

Case No.: 14CV2830 BEN (BLM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

[Docket Nos. 16, 17, 19]

Plaintiff Yolanda Aviles filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social 

Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and 

supplemental security income. (Docket No. 1.) A briefing schedule was issued. (Docket 

No. 15.) Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 16.) Defendant 

filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. 

(Docket Nos. 17-18.) 

On October 23, 2015, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued a thoughtful and 

thorough Report and Recommendation recommending this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment and grant Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 

(Docket No. 19.) Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due 

November 13, 2015. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections. For the reasons that 

Case 3:14-cv-02830-BEN-BLM Document 20 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 2
2

14CV2830 BEN (BLM)

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

follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

However, “[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); see also 

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “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. 

The Court need not conduct a de novo review given the absence of objections. 

However, the Court has conducted a de novo review and fully ADOPTS the Report and 

Recommendation. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and 

Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk shall close 

the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2015

Case 3:14-cv-02830-BEN-BLM Document 20 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 2