Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01141/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01141-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
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 

\'2 SEP 26 PM 3: 41 

,:;U,Hii: 

L}"i n~i-"\ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LORINDA W. WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAEL]. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner of the Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 11~CV~1141 W (NLS) 

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION 

[DOC. 16], (2) DENYING 

PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY .. 

JUDGMENT MOTION [DOC. 10], 

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

SUMMARY..JUDGMENT MOTION 

[DOC. 14], AND (4) REMANDING 

CASE 

On May 25, 2011, Plaintiff Lorinda W. Williams filed this lawsuit seeking judicial 

review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying her claim for social 

security disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income benefits. The 

matter was referred to the Honorable Nita L. Stormes, United States Magistrate Judge, 

for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Thereafter, the 

parties filed cross~motions for summary judgment. 

- 1 - llcvl141w 

Case 3:11-cv-01141-W-NLS Document 17 Filed 09/26/12 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 

On January 24, 2012, Judge Stormes issued a Report and Recommendation 

("Report"), recommending that the Court deny Plaintiffs summary,judgment motion, 

and grant Defendant's summary,judgment motion. (See Report [Doc. 16],9:2-5.) The 

Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed by February 14, 2012, and any 

reply filed by February 21,2012. (Id. at 9:6-10.) 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 findings and recommendations de novo ifobjection is made, 

but not otherwise") (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Iohnstone, 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 oflaw is 

well established within 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 Renya, 

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946,949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) 

(Lorenz, J.) (adopted Report without review because neither party filed objections to 

the Report despite the opportunity to do so, "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 Stormes' recommendation, and ADOPTS 

the Report [Doc. 16] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 

incorporated herein by reference, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's summary,judgment 

llcvl141w 

Case 3:11-cv-01141-W-NLS Document 17 Filed 09/26/12 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 

motion [Doc. 10L and GRANTS Defendant's summary ..judgment motion [Doc. 14]. 

The Clerk of the Court shall close the district court case file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: September 26,2012 

.. 3" llcv1141w 

Case 3:11-cv-01141-W-NLS Document 17 Filed 09/26/12 Page 3 of 3