Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00270/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00270-2/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

CHRISTINA LEE CASTLE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-CV-270-LAB-BGS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

vs. AND RECOMMENDATION

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Castle challenges the denial of her claim for disability benefits under the Social

Security Act. The challenge was referred to Magistrate Judge Skomal for a Report and

Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, after which Castle and the Commissioner

filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On May 20, 2014, Judge Skomal issued his

R&R, finding that Castle’s summary judgment motion should be denied and the

Commissioner’s summary judgment motion should be granted.

The Court reviews an R&R on dispositive motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b):

“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that

has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the

recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate

judge with instructions.”

//

- 1 -

Case 3:13-cv-00270-LAB-BGS Document 26 Filed 08/12/14 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

Here, however, Castle filed no objection to the R&R, and that carries heavy

consequences. Under both the Standing Order of the undersigned Judge and the Local

Rules of the Court, the failure to file an objection to a motion may be construed as consent

to the motion being granted—and the Court extends this to the failure to file an objection to

an R&R. See Standing Order 4(b); Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c).

In any event, the Court has reviewed Judge Skomal’s thorough R&R and finds it is

correct. It is ADOPTED. Castle’s motion for summary judgment is therefore DENIED, and

the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 11, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:13-cv-00270-LAB-BGS Document 26 Filed 08/12/14 Page 2 of 2