Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01402/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01402-1/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

BRAD K. BUCKLEY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-01402 W

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

[DOC. 22], (2) DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARYJUDGMENT MOTION [DOC. 19],

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION

[DOC. 20]

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

On June 24, 2011, Plaintiff Brad K. Buckley filed a complaint in this Court under

the Social Security Act seeking judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s

denial of his Supplemental Security Income claim. On June 24, 2011, the Court

referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for a Report and

Recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. 

On April 13, 2012, Judge Adler transferred the matter to United States Magistrate

Judge Karen S. Crawford. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

- 1 - 11cv1402w

Case 3:11-cv-01402-W-KSC Document 23 Filed 02/25/13 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

On December 27, 2012, Judge Crawford issued a Report and Recommendation

(“Report”), recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion

and grant Defendant’s summary-judgment motion. (See Report [Doc. 22], 9:3–5.) The

Report also required the parties to file any objections by February 1, 2013, and file any

replies to objections by February 15, 2013. (Id. at 9:7-10.) To date, the parties have

filed no objections and have not requested additional time to file objections. 

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

recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When parties file no

objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a district court need not

review that report and recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(holding that 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c) “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”)(emphasis in original); Schmidt v. 

Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Arizona 2003) (concluding that where no

objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to review the magistrate

judge’s Report). This rule is well established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. 

See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005)(stating “[o]f course,

de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R &

R.”)(emphasis added)(citing Renya-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395

F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting Report without review

because neither party filed objections to the Report despite the opportunity to do so,

stating, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its

entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004)

(Benitez, J.).

Therefore,the Court acceptsJudge Crawford’s Report, and ADOPTS the Report

[Doc. 22] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated

herein by reference, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion [Doc.

- 2 - 11cv1402w

Case 3:11-cv-01402-W-KSC Document 23 Filed 02/25/13 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

19]and GRANTS Defendant’s summary-judgment motion [Doc. 20]. The district

court clerk shall close the district court case file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2013

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv1402w

Case 3:11-cv-01402-W-KSC Document 23 Filed 02/25/13 Page 3 of 3