Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01656/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01656-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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

JAMES RUSSELL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-1656 W (JMA)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 13]; 

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT [DOC. 11];

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC.

12]; AND

(4) REMANDING CASE

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

On July 26, 2011, Plaintiff James Russell filed a complaint in this Court seeking

judicial review of Defendant Social Security Administration Commissioner’s final

decision denying his claims for disability insurance benefits. [Doc. 1.] The parties have

filed cross-motions for summary judgment. [Doc. 11; Doc. 12.] 

On February 15, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler issued a

-1- 11cv1656w

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 14 Filed 03/11/13 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

Report andRecommendation(“Report”)recommending thatthis Court grant Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment and deny Defendant’s cross motion for summary

judgment. [Doc. 13.] The Report also ordered that any objection was to be filed by

March 1, 2013. (Id. at 28.) To date, neither party has filed an objection or made a

request for additional time to do so.

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

recommendation, and a party’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 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) (en banc) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clearthat 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. 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 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.”) (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 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.).

Accordingly, the Court accepts Magistrate Judge Adler’s recommendation, and

ADOPTS the Report in its entirety [Doc. 13]. For the reasons stated in the Report,

which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment [Doc. 11], DENIES Defendant’s cross motion for summary

judgment [Doc. 12], and REMANDS the case to the Social Security Administration

-2- 11cv1656w

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 14 Filed 03/11/13 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

for proceedings consistent with the Report. Upon remand, the district court clerk shall

close the district court case file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 11, 2013

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

-3- 11cv1656w

Case 3:11-cv-01656-W-JMA Document 14 Filed 03/11/13 Page 3 of 3