Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02078/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02078-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision (regarding payment of benefits)

---

1

18-cv-2078 W (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

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP JACOB KORNGOLD,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-2078 W (MDD)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 21];

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [DOC. 16]; 

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [DOC. 19]; AND

(4) REMANDING CASE

On September 7, 2018, Plaintiff Phillip Korngold filed this lawsuit seeking judicial 

review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for 

Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. (See Compl. [Doc. 

1].) The matter was referred to the Honorable Mitchell D. Dembin, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (See

Sept. 10, 2018 Order [Doc. 3].) Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary 

judgment. (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 16]; Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 19].) 

Case 3:18-cv-02078-W-MDD Document 22 Filed 09/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-cv-2078 W (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

28

On August 29, 2019, Judge Dembin issued a Report and Recommendation 

(“Report”), recommending the Court remand the case for further proceedings. (Report 

[Doc. 21] 8:15–16.) The Report also ordered any objections filed no later than 

September 12, 2019, and any reply filed by September 19, 2019. (Id. 8:21–9:6.) To date, 

no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to 

file an objection.

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) 

(holding 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”) (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 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.”) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-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 despite having the 

opportunity to do so, and holding that, “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.).

The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Dembin’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the 

Report [Doc. 21] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 

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

Case 3:18-cv-02078-W-MDD Document 22 Filed 09/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-cv-2078 W (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

28

judgment [Doc. 16], DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. 

19], and REMANDS the matter for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02078-W-MDD Document 22 Filed 09/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3