Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01486/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01486-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 861
Nature of Suit: Social Security - HIA (1395 ff)
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

– 1 – 13-cv-1486 BAS (BGS)

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

GREGORY A. BROUCKAERT,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-cv-1486 BAS (BGS)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION IN 

ITS ENTIRETY; 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; AND

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(ECFs 20, 10, 15-1)

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security,

Defendant.

On June 27, 2013, Plaintiff Gregory Brouckaert, filed a complaint pursuant 

to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the Commissioner of 

the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits. ECF 1. On 

September 19, 2013, the Commissioner filed an answer. ECF 7. On October 25, 

2013, Brouckaert filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting reversal of the 

Administrative Law Judge’s final decision. ECF 10. The Commissioner filed a 

Case 3:13-cv-01486-BAS-BGS Document 21 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 13-cv-1486 BAS (BGS)

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

cross-motion for summary judgment and opposed Brouckaert’s motion. ECFs 15-

1, 16. The Commissioner argued that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision 

was supported by substantial evidence, free from legal error, and should be 

affirmed.

On July 10, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued 

a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that this Court grant the 

Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and deny Brouckaert’s motion. 

ECF 20. Judge Skomal ordered any objections to be filed by July 25, 2014, and 

any replies by August 1, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed, and neither 

party has requested additional time to do so.

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections 

are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 

Id. But “[t]he 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) (emphasis in original); see also 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). “Neither 

the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, 

findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. 

“When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived.” Marshall v. Astrue, 

No. 08cv1735, 2010 WL 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (Lorenz, J.) 

(adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed 

objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so).

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on July 25, 2014. 

However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional 

time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. 

Case 3:13-cv-01486-BAS-BGS Document 21 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 13-cv-1486 BAS (BGS)

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

See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Having nonetheless conducted a de novo 

review of Brouckaert’s and the Commissioners motions for summary judgment,

the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS the report in its entirety (ECF 20), and 

GRANTS the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 15-1). The 

Court DENIES Brouckaert’s motion for summary judgment. ECF 10. Moreover, 

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s assessment of the claims 

debatable or wrong, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. See Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 4, 2014

Case 3:13-cv-01486-BAS-BGS Document 21 Filed 08/04/14 Page 3 of 3