Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02153/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02153-1/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 (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

- 1 - 08CV2153

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW JAMES KOONTZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08CV2153-LAB (POR)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

On November 20, 2008, 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 be reversed. That decision denied him a period of

disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income payments.

The Administrative Law Judge who heard Plaintiff's claim determined he was not

disabled during the relevant time period and the Appeals Council denied his request for

review.

This matter was referred to Magistrate William Gallo for report and recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. On

July 26, 2010, Judge Gallo issued his report and recommendation (the "R&R"),

recommending that Plaintiff's motion be denied and Defendant's motion be granted. The

Case 3:08-cv-02153-LAB-WVG Document 22 Filed 08/24/10 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 - 08CV2153

R&R also permitted the parties to file objections to the R&R no later than August 16, 2010.

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, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment, and GRANTS Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The

Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits is AFFIRMED and this action is

DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 23, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02153-LAB-WVG Document 22 Filed 08/24/10 Page 2 of 2