Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01607/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01607-0/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 (DIWC)

---

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

- 1 - 05cv1607-BEN (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD L. SIMMS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05CV1607-BEN (POR)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

REMANDING CASE FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

vs.

JOANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security

Defendant.

Plaintiff Richard L. Simms seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of his

application under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq. Cross motions were

filed. On December 28, 2006, the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter

issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the case be remanded to the

Commissioner for further development and clarification of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. 

The Report also gave the parties until January 29, 2007 to object to the Report’s findings and

conclusions. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) provides: “A judge of the [district] court shall make a de

novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Thus, the governing “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,

Case 3:05-cv-01607-BEN-POR Document 16 Filed 02/07/07 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

- 2 - 05cv1607-BEN (POR)

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see also id. (“Neither the Constitution nor

the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the

parties themselves accept as correct.”) (citation omitted)); Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000

n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) ( “Of course, de novo review of a [Report] is only required when an objection

is made to the [Report].” ) (citation omitted)). 

To date, no objections have been filed; nor has there been a request for additional time to

file any. Notwithstanding the lack of objections, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report. 

Judge Porter’s findings and conclusions are fully supported by the record and well reasoned. 

Accordingly, Judge Porter’s Report is ADOPTED in full. For the reasons set forth in the Report,

the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further development and clarification of

Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 6, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01607-BEN-POR Document 16 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 2