Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00826/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00826-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 151
Nature of Suit: Overpayments under the Medicare Act
Cause of Action: 42:1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review

---

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

-1- 04cv826

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOME WELLNESS WEST,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO.04-CV-826 W (CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT &

RECOMMENDATIONS

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES, 

Defendant.

On April 21, 2004, Plaintiff commenced this action seeking review of an

administrative decision denying Medicare reimbursement for durable equipment

Plaintiff purchased. In July and December 2005, the parties filed cross–motions for

summary judgment, which the Court referred to the Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo. On

September 28, 2006, Judge Bencivengo issued a Report and Recommendation

(“Report”) suggesting that the Court should affirm the administrative decision. Plaintiff

had until October 20, 2006, to file an objection. To date, neither party has submitted

an objection or requested additional time. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the

Report, GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and DENIES Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment for the reasons explained therein.

Case 3:04-cv-00826-W-CAB Document 44 Filed 11/02/06 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

-2- 04cv826

The duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

28 U.S.C. § 636. The district court “must make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)( c); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150(1985). When no objections are filed, however, the

district court need not review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that the

district court had no obligation to review a report); see also United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc) (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”).

Here, Plaintiff has tendered no objections to the Report nor requested an

extension of time in which to do so. The Court therefore accepts Judge Bencivengo’s

recommendation and ADOPTS the Report in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the

Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 26], DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment [Doc. No. 15] and AFFIRMS the administrative decision in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 2, 2006

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00826-W-CAB Document 44 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 2