Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02646/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02646-1/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 - 09 cv 2646 W (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRENE GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-CV-2646 W (WVG)

1) ADOPTS REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

(Doc. No. 10.) 

2) GRANTS MOTION TO 

DISMISS (Doc. No. 8.)

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

On February 9, 2010, Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration, (“Defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss this matter for lack of

jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 8.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. Magistrate Judge

William V. Gallo has issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending

that Defendant’s motion be granted. (Doc. No. 10.) 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

Case 3:09-cv-02646-W-WVG Document 11 Filed 07/02/10 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 - 09 cv 2646 W (WVG)

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

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise”)(emphasis in

original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Arizona 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 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 Renya-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F.

Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopted Report without review because

neither party filed objections to the Report despite the opportunity to do so, “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 Gallo’s recommendation and ADOPTS the

Report (Doc. No. 10) in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is

incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 8.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 2, 2010

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02646-W-WVG Document 11 Filed 07/02/10 Page 2 of 2