Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02741/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02741-1/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

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

NANETTE CORONADO ESCOBAR,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv2741- LAB (BGS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER OF

DISMISSAL

vs.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant.

This social security appeal was referred to Magistrate Judge Skomal for a report and

recommendation (“R & R”). Judge Skomal’s R & R on the cross motions for summary

judgment recommends that Plaintiff Nanette Coronado Escobar’s motion be denied and the

Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) motion be granted.

Objections to the R & R were due on January 19, 2016. No objections were filed. 

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly

objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This

section does not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). The “statute makes it clear that the district

- 1 - 14cv02741-LAB

Case 3:14-cv-02741-LAB-BGS Document 27 Filed 01/28/16 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

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). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R & R and agrees with its rationale and

conclusions.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 27, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 14cv02741-LAB

Case 3:14-cv-02741-LAB-BGS Document 27 Filed 01/28/16 Page 2 of 2