Gonzalez v. Saul

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 Rafael G., Case No. 21-cv-522-MMA (MSB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION; AND 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of [Doc. No. 22] Social Security, [15] Defendant.1 (2) AFFIRMING THE [16] COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 17 SECURITY’S DECISION [18] [Doc. No. 21] [21] 22 On March 24, 2021, Plaintiff Rafael G. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security appeal 23 challenging the denial of an application for disability insurance benefits. See Doc. No. 1. 24 The Court referred all matters arising in this appeal to the assigned magistrate judge for [26] 1 Kilolo Kijakazi is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Therefore, pursuant to Federal 27 Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Kilolo Kijakazi is substituted for Andrew Saul as the defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be taken, pursuant to the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social [28] 1 ||report and recommendation pursuant to Section 636(b)(1)(B) of Title 28 of the United 2 || States Code, and Civil Local Rule 72.1. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3 || 72.1. Judge Berg has issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report recommending that the 4 || Court affirm the decision of the Commissioner. See Doc. No. 22. Neither party objected 5 the Report and Recommendation. The time for filing objections has expired. 6 The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and 7 recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 8 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Where the parties object to a report and recommendation 9 || (“R&R”), “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those 10 || portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); see Thomas 11 || v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need 12 ||not review the R&R de novo. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992 , 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 13 |}2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 14 ||A district judge may nevertheless “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 15 || findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); see 16 || also Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006). 17 The Court has made a review and determination in accordance with the 18 requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Upon due consideration, the 19 Court ADOPTS Judge Berg’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and 20 || AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Court DIRECTS 21 Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || DATE: September 21, 2022 Mitel Ma : bolls A HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge