Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01689/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01689-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

17cv1689-W-RNB

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

SHELLEY E. STONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration, Acting Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv1689-W-RNB

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 22],

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [DOC. 16], AND

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [DOC. 17]

On August 22, 2017, Shelley E. Stone (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit seeking 

judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s (“Defendant”) final decision 

denying her application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. The 

matter was referred to the Honorable Robert N. Block, United States Magistrate Judge, 

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

and Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Case 3:17-cv-01689-W-RNB Document 24 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv1689-W-RNB

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 May 16, 2018, Judge Block issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), 

recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion, deny Defendant’s motion, and that 

judgment be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this 

matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g). (Report [Doc. 22] 11:9–13.) The Report also ordered any objections filed within 

14 days after being served with a copy of the Report. (Id. 11:14–16.) 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 finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 

otherwise”) (emphasis in original); 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). This rule of law is well-established 

within both 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 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 

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

(adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the 

opportunity to do so, and holding that, “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 Block’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the 

Report [Doc. 22] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 

Case 3:17-cv-01689-W-RNB Document 24 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv1689-W-RNB

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

incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment [Doc. 16], DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 17], and

ORDERS as follows:

• Judgment shall be entered reversing the Social Security Commissioner’s decision.

• This matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings pursuant to 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01689-W-RNB Document 24 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3