Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02056/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02056-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAZDAR R. ALZAYADI, et al.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2056-LAB (WVG)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

On September 6, 2011, Plaintiffs for themselves and putatively on behalf of a class

of similarly-situated individuals filed this action, bringing claims pertaining to the way in which

their social security appeals were being adjudicated. On March 6, 2012, all matters arising

from their appeal were referred to Magistrate Judge William Gallo for report and

recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On July 31, Judge Gallo issued his report and

recommendation (the “R&R”), recommending that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted

and that Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for leave to file an amended complaint be denied. Any

objections to the R&R were required to be filed no later than August 31, 2012, and the parties

were cautioned that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

raise those objections on appeal. Since that time, no objections have been filed. 

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge must

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

- 1 - 11cv2056

Case 3:11-cv-02056-LAB-WVG Document 34 Filed 09/04/12 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

objected to." Id. "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This

section 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 "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), cert. denied, 157 L.Ed.2d 182 (2003).

The unobjected-to R&R is therefore ADOPTED. Plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended

complaint is DENIED and Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This action is

DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/4/2012 ___________________________________

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge 

- 2 - 11cv2056

Case 3:11-cv-02056-LAB-WVG Document 34 Filed 09/04/12 Page 2 of 2