Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00328/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00328-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

DIANE R. HUMPHREYS, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-cv-328-W(PCL)

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING IN FULL REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC.

18];

(2) GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC.

15]; AND

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT [DOC. 16]

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Defendant.

On February 8, 2012, Plaintiff Diane R. Humphreys filed a complaint under

Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, requesting judicial review of the

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s final decision denying her

application for disability insurance benefits. (Doc. 1.) Thereafter, the Court referred

this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis, who issued a Report and

- 1 - 12cv328

Case 3:12-cv-00328-W-PCL Document 19 Filed 03/24/14 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

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant in part Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment and deny Defendant Michael J. Astrue’s cross-motion

for summary judgment. (Docs. 15, 16.) The time for filing objections to the R&R

expired on March 21, 2014. (R&R 19:2–9.) Both parties are represented by counsel,

but to date, neither party has filed any objections.

I. DISCUSSION

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But“[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) (emphasis in original). 

“Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo,

findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. 

“When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived.” Marshall v. Astrue, No.

08cv1735, 2010 WL 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (Lorenz, J.).

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on March 21, 2014. However,

no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so. 

Accordingly, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d at 1121. Having conducted a de novo review of the parties’ cross-motions for

summary judgment and the R&R, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN FULL

the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

//

//

//

//

//

- 2 - 12cv328

Case 3:12-cv-00328-W-PCL Document 19 Filed 03/24/14 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

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS

IN FULL the R&R (Doc. 18), GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment (Doc. 15), and DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment

(Doc. 16).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: March 24, 2014

HON. THOMAS J. WHELAN

United States District Court

Southern District of California

- 3 - 12cv328

Case 3:12-cv-00328-W-PCL Document 19 Filed 03/24/14 Page 3 of 3