Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02436/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02436-0/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

15-CV-2436-W (JLB)

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

CARL ANDREW MARSHALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-CV-2436-W (JLB)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 23]; 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [DOC. 17]; AND

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [DOC. 18]

On October 28, 2015, Plaintiff Carl Andrew Marshall filed this action seeking 

judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying his claim 

for disability insurance benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. (See Compl. [Doc. 

1].) The matter was referred to the Honorable Jill L. Burkhardt, United States Magistrate 

Judge, for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (Nov. 19, 

2015 Order [Doc. 5].) Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 

(Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 17]; Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 18].) 

Case 3:15-cv-02436-W-JLB Document 24 Filed 02/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

15-CV-2436-W (JLB)

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 January 31, 2017, Judge Burkhardt issued a Report and Recommendation 

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

and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (R&R [Doc. 23].) Judge 

Burkhardt ordered that any objections be filed by February 14, 2017. (Id. [Doc. 23]

24:27–25:2.) No objections were filed. There has been no request for additional time to 

object.

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 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) 

(reasoning that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must 

review the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, 

but not otherwise”); 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 both 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[.]”) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 

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

because neither party filed objections despite having 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 Judge Burkhardt’s recommendation and ADOPTS 

the R&R [Doc. 23] in its entirety. 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:15-cv-02436-W-JLB Document 24 Filed 02/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

15-CV-2436-W (JLB)

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 the reasons stated in the R&R, which is incorporated herein by reference, the 

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 17] and GRANTS

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. 18].

Judgment is entered for Defendant. The clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-02436-W-JLB Document 24 Filed 02/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3