Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01125/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01125-1/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

RIN LAY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-1125 W (LSP)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION,

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

SUMMARY-JUDGMENT

MOTION, AND (3) GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY

JUDGMENT MOTION

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Rin Lay filed this lawsuit on May 23, 2011. The lawsuit challenges a

portion of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision of January 22, 2011 that concluded

Plaintiff was not disabled and did not qualify for disability benefits for the period of

November 17, 2004 through July 1, 2006. 

On February 12, 2013, the Honorable Karen S. Crawford, United States

Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). The Report

recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion and grant

Defendant’s summary-judgment motion. The Report also ordered that any objections

were to be filed within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Report. To

date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in

which to file an objection. 

- 1 - 11cv1125w

Case 3:11-cv-01125-W-KSC Document 33 Filed 03/29/13 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

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

reviewthe magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made,

but not otherwise”)(emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 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 of law 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 RenyaTapia, 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 Crawford’s recommendation, and ADOPTS

the Report [Doc. 32] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is

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

motion [Doc. 26], and GRANTS Defendant’s summary-judgment motion [Doc. 27]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 29, 2013

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

- 2 - 11cv1125w

Case 3:11-cv-01125-W-KSC Document 33 Filed 03/29/13 Page 2 of 2