Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00412/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00412-1/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

15CV412 BEN (MDD)

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

CAREN M. FUENTES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15CV412 BEN (MDD)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

[Docket Nos. 10, 15, 19]

Plaintiff Caren M. Fuentes 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. 9.) Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 10.) Defendant 

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

(Docket Nos. 15-16.) 

On February 8, 2016, Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin 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 February 22, 2016. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections. For the reasons that 

Case 3:15-cv-00412-BEN-MDD Document 20 Filed 02/24/16 Page 1 of 2
2

15CV412 BEN (MDD)

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 has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 

Court 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: February 23, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-00412-BEN-MDD Document 20 Filed 02/24/16 Page 2 of 2