Gonzales v. Kijakazi

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 ANTHONY EDWARD G., Case No.: 23-cv-1611 W (DDL) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 22], (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION Social Security Administration, 15 [DOC. 11], (3) AFFIRMING Defendant. DECISION OF THE [16] COMMISSIONER AND (4) 17 DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE [18] COMMISSIONER [19] 20 On August 31, 2023, Plaintiff Anthony Edward G. filed this lawsuit seeking 21 judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying his 22 application for Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income disability 23 benefits. (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 1.) On September 25, 2023 the matter was transferred to the 24 Honorable David D. Leshner, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and 25 recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). (See Minute Order [Doc. 4].) 26 On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed his summary-judgment motion [Doc. 11]. On 27 April 4, 2024, the Commissioner filed his opposition [Doc. 19] and on April 18, 2024, 28 Plaintiff filed his reply [Doc. 21]. On July 17, 2024, Judge Leshner issued a Report and 1 Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Court (1) deny Plaintiff’s summary 2 judgment motion, (2) affirm the Commissioner’s final decision and (3) direct entry of 3 judgment in the Commissioner’s favor. (Report [Doc. 22] 22:10–14.) The Report also 4 ordered any objections filed no later than August 1, 2024 and any reply filed no later than 5 August 9, 2024. (Id. 22:15–17.) The Report also advised the parties that “[f]ailure to 6 timely file objections may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal. [Citation 7 omitted.]” (Id. at 22:17–20.) To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a 8 request for additional time in which to file an objection. 9 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 10 recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 11 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). When no objections are 12 filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 13 recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 14 (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must review 15 the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 16 otherwise”) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 17 Ariz. 2003 ) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no 18 obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established 19 within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992 , 1000 20 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an 21 objection is made to the R & R.”) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 22 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) 23 (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the 24 opportunity to do so, and holding that, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and 25 Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155 , 1157 26 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 27 The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Leshner’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the 28 Report [Doc. 22] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 1 incorporated herein by reference, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s summary-judgment 2 |}motion [Doc. 11], AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision and ORDERS that 3 judgement be entered in favor of the Commissioner. 4 The Clerk shall close the District Court case file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: August 12, 2024 \ [pe Dor 8 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 9 United States District Judge