Strickland v. O'Malley

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 CURTIS RYAN S., Case No.: 24-cv-1057 W (KSC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 13], (2) REVERSING IN PART 14 LELAND DUDEK, Acting Commissioner AND AFFIRMING IN PART THE of Social Security Administration, 15 COMMISSIONER’S DECISION, Defendant. AND (3) REMANDING CASE FOR [16] FURTHER PROCEEDINGS [17] 18 On June 19, 2024, Plaintiff Curtis Ryan S. filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review 19 of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for 20 disability insurance benefits. (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 6.) The matter was referred to the 21 Honorable Karen S. Crawford, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and 22 recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). 23 On October 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed his opening brief (Pl’s Brief [Doc. 9].) On 24 December 6, 2024, Defendant filed his responsive brief (Def’s Brief [Doc. 11]). On 25 December 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed his reply brief (Reply [Doc. 12]). 26 On April 25, 2025, Magistrate Judge Crawford issued a Report and 27 Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the Court (1) reverse in part and affirm in 28 part the Commissioner’s decision, and (2) remand the case for further proceedings 1 consistent with the Report’s findings. (Report [Doc. 13] 1:19–23, 11:10–12.) The 2 Report also ordered any objections filed within the time limits allowed by Federal Rule of 3 Civil Procedure 72(b). (Id. 11:13–14.) That rule requires objections to be filed within 14 4 days after being served with a copy of the Report. 5 To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional 6 time in which to file an objection. 7 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 8 recommendation, and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 9 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). When no objections are 10 filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 11 recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 12 (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must review 13 the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 14 otherwise”) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 15 Ariz. 2003 ) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no 16 obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established 17 within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992 , 1000 18 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an 19 objection is made to the R & R.”) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 20 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) 21 (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the 22 opportunity to do so, and holding that, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and 23 Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155 , 1157 24 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 25 Because there is no objection to the Report, the Court accepts Judge Crawford’s 26 recommendation and ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 13] in its entirety. For the reasons 27 stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court REVERSES [28] 1 || IN PART and AFFIRMS IN PART the Commissioner’s decision and ORDERS the 2 ||case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report. 3 The Clerk shall close the District Court case file. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ||Dated: June 3, 2025 \ 7 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan 8 Unted States District Judge