Delgadillo v. O'Malley

[9] 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [12] 13 ROSALINDA D., Case No.: 24-CV-1487 W (LR) 14 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 15 v. AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 12], (2) REVERSING THE 16 FRANK BISIGNANO, Acting COMMISSIONER’S DECISION, Commissioner of Social Security 17 AND (3) REMANDING CASE FOR Administration, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS [18] Defendant. [20] 21 On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff Rosalinda D. filed this lawsuit seeking judicial 22 review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying her application for 23 social security disability benefits. (See Compl. [Doc. 1].) The matter was referred to the 24 Honorable Lupe Rodriguez, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and 25 recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). 26 On March 5, 2025, the parties filed their Joint Motion for Judicial Review. (Jt. 27 Motion [Doc. 12].) On July 30, 2025, Magistrate Judge Rodriguez issued a Report and 28 Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the Court (1) reverse the Commissioner’s 1 decision, and (2) remand the case for further proceedings consistent with the Report’s 2 findings. (Report [Doc. 14] 2:7–10, 28:14–16.) The Report also ordered any objections 3 filed on or before August 13, 2025 and any reply filed on or before August 20, 2025. (Id. 4 28:17–21.) The Report advised that “failure to file objections within the specified time 5 may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order.” (Id. 28:21– 6 29:2, citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449 , 455 (9th Cir. 1998) and Martinez v. Ylst, [7] 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).) 8 To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional 9 time in which to file an objection. 10 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 11 recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 12 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). When no objections are 13 filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 14 recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 15 (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must review 16 the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 17 otherwise”) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 18 Ariz. 2003 ) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no 19 obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established 20 within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992 , 1000 21 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an 22 objection is made to the R & R.”) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 23 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) 24 (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the 25 opportunity to do so, and holding that, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and 26 Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155 , 1157 27 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). [28] 1 The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Rodriguez’s recommendation, and ADOPTS 2 ||the Report [Doc. 14] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 3 ||incorporated herein by reference, the Court REVERSES the Commissioner’s decision 4 ||and ORDERS (1) the case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the 5 || Report and (2) that JUDGEMENT is entered in favor of Plaintiff Rosalinda D. and 6 against Defendant Commissioner. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: August 25, 2025 \ 10 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan ll Unted States District Judge