Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02230/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02230-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:206 Social Security Benefits

---

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

DANIEL G. HRIVNAK,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-2230 W

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

[DOC. 17], (2) GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARYJUDGMENT MOTION [DOC. 11],

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S

SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION

[DOC. 16], AND (4) REMANDING

CASE

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

On September 26 , 2011, Plaintiff Daniel G. Hrivnak filed a complaint in this

Court seeking judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s denial of his

Disability Insurance Benefits claim under the Social Security Act. On September 27,

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. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

On September 11, 2012, Judge Adler issued a Report and Recommendation

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

deny Defendant’s summary-judgment motion, and remand the case back to the Social

- 1 - 11cv2230w

Case 3:11-cv-02230-W-JMA Document 18 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

Security Administration for proceedings consistent with the Report. (See Report [Doc.

17], 18:19–21.) The Report also required the parties to file any objections by October

2, 2012, and file any replies to objections by October 16, 2012. (Id. at 18:24–27.) 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 accepts Judge Adlers’ Report, and ADOPTS the Report

[Doc. 17] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated

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

11], DENIES Defendant’s summary-judgment motion [Doc. 16], and REMANDS the

- 2 - 11cv2230w

Case 3:11-cv-02230-W-JMA Document 18 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

case to the Social Security Administration for proceedings consistent with the Report. 

Upon remand, 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 - 11cv2230w

Case 3:11-cv-02230-W-JMA Document 18 Filed 02/25/13 Page 3 of 3