Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01353/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01353-0/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 - 06CV1353

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA PULIDO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV1353-LAB (CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

vs. AND RECOMMENDATION

JO ANN B. BARNHART,

Defendant.

On June 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Judicial Review and Remedy on

Administrative Decision Under the Social Security Act, requesting that the decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security, denying her a period of disability and disability insurance benefits,

be reversed. 

The Administrative Law Judge who heard Plaintiff’s claim issued a decision dated April 22,

2004, finding Plaintiff was not disabled. Following Plaintiff’s appeal, the Appeals Council remanded

the claim for further proceedings. The Administrative Law Judge issued a second decision dated

September 21, 2005, finding Plaintiff was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review of this

decision.

ThismatterwasreferredtoMagistrate Judge Cathy Bencivengo for report and recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On October 23, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for reversal or remand,

which Judge Bencivengo construed as a motion for summary judgment. On November 20, 2006,

Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. On August 22, 2007, JudgeBencivengo issued

Case 3:06-cv-01353-LAB-CAB Document 14 Filed 09/07/07 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 - 06CV1353

her report and recommendation (the “R&R”), recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be denied and

Defendant’s motion be granted. The R&R also permitted the parties to file objections to the R&R no

later than September 5, 2007. Neither party has filed objections to the R&R.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision” on a dispositive

matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). “The court shall make a de novo determination of

those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §636(b).

Moreover, 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the district court when

no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). The Ninth Circuit has

interpreted the language of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1), and determined that the “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, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc).

The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds it correct. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the

Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reversal or

remand is DENIED, Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the

Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 7, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01353-LAB-CAB Document 14 Filed 09/07/07 Page 2 of 2