Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02098/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02098-1/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 – 16cv2098

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

ZSCAQULINE C. MASERANG,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-2098-BAS-MDD

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 

ENTIRETY AND

(2) REMANDING THE CASE TO 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

JUDGE FOR FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

On August 18, 2016, Plaintiff Zscaquline C. Maserang filed a complaint under 

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

Security Administration’s final decision denying her application for disability 

benefits. (ECF No. 1.) 1 The Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate 

Judge Mitchell D. Dembin. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment and Defendant 

 

1 On January 23, 2017, Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security. She is therefore substituted as Defendant in this suit for former Acting Commissioner 

Carolyn W. Colvin. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d); 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(d) (stating that where an action 

for judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner is instituted “the person holding the 

Office of the Commissioner shall, in his official capacity, be the proper defendant”).

Case 3:16-cv-02098-BAS-MDD Document 22 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 16cv2098

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

cross moved. (ECF Nos. 16, 19). On August 29, 2017, Judge Dembin issued a Report 

and Recommendation (“Report” or “R&R”) on Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment and Defendant’s cross-motion. Judge Dembin recommended that this 

Court remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) for further 

proceedings due to legal error in the ALJ’s decision. (ECF No. 21 at 15:27−16:2.) 

The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on September 12, 2017. (Id.

16:6−8). Both parties are represented by counsel, but to date, neither party has filed 

any objections.

I. ANALYSIS

The Court reviews de novo those portions of an 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. “The 

statute makes it clear,” however, “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); see also 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). “Neither the 

Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and 

recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is well-established in 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[n] R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”); 

Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting 

report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the 

report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 

1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was September 12, 2017. (ECF 

Case 3:16-cv-02098-BAS-MDD Document 22 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 16cv2098

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

No. 21 at 16:6−8.) However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has 

requested additional time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on 

that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the parties’ cross-motions 

for summary judgment and the magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court concludes that

Judge Dembin’s reasoning is sound. The R&R is thorough, well-reasoned, and 

correctly concludes that the ALJ erroneously applied the presumption of 

nondisability in deciding Plaintiff’s present application for Social Security benefits. 

Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

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

IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF No. 21) and REMANDS the case to the ALJ 

for proceedings consistent with this order. The ALJ is instructed not to apply the

principle of the res judicata presumption of continuing nondisability to resolve 

Plaintiff’s present application for Social Security disability benefits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 20, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02098-BAS-MDD Document 22 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3