Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02884/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02884-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:427 Social Security Benenfits

---

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

RODNEY A. JOSEPH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-2884 W (KSC)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 17]; 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT [DOC. 14]; AND

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC.

15]

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

On December 9, 2011, Plaintiff Rodney A. Joseph filed a complaint in this Court

seeking judicial review of Defendant Social Security Administration Commissioner’s

final decision denying his claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental

security income. [Doc. 1.] On May 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary

-1- 11cv2884w

Case 3:11-cv-02884-W-KSC Document 18 Filed 03/01/13 Page 1 of 3
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

judgment, which Defendant timely opposed. [Doc. 14; Doc. 15.] On July 3, 2013,

Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 15.]

On December 12, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford

issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that this Court deny

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross motion for

summary judgment. [Doc. 17.] The Report also ordered that any objection was to be

filed by February 22, 2012. (Id. at 13.) To date, neither party has filed an objection or

made a request for additional time to do so.

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, and a party’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) (en banc) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clearthat 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. 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 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 at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949

(S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because

neither party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so); see also

Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

Accordingly, the Court accepts Magistrate Judge Crawford’s recommendation,

and ADOPTS the Report in its entirety [Doc. 17]. For the reasons stated in the

Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the CourtDENIES Plaintiff’smotion

-2- 11cv2884w

Case 3:11-cv-02884-W-KSC Document 18 Filed 03/01/13 Page 2 of 3
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

forsummary judgment[Doc. 14] and GRANTSDefendant’s cross motion forsummary

judgment [Doc. 15]. The district court clerk shall close the district court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 1, 2013

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

-3- 11cv2884w

Case 3:11-cv-02884-W-KSC Document 18 Filed 03/01/13 Page 3 of 3