Vinck v. Berryhill

[9] 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [12] 13 ROSEMARY V., Case No.: 19-cv-715 W (LR) 14 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 15 v. AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 32]; AND (2) GRANTING 16 KILOLO KIJAKAZI,2 Acting MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Commissioner of Social Security, 17 UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 406 (b) [DOC. 27] Defendants [23] 24 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees under [25] 42 U.S.C. § 406 (b). (See Motion [Doc. 27].) On May 26, 2023, United States Magistrate 26 Judge Lupe Rodriguez issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending 27 the Court (1) grant the motion (2) award the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., 28 CPC $14,000 in attorney’s fees, and (3) order the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, 1 Inc., CPC to reimburse Plaintiff Rosemary V. $4,212.59 for previously-awarded EAJA 2 fees. (Report [Doc. 32] 7:22–27.) The Report also ordered any objections filed no later 3 than June 12, 2023, and any reply filed by June 20, 2023. (Id. at 8:1–5.) To date, no 4 objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to file 5 an objection. 6 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 7 recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). When no objections are 9 filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 10 recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 11 (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must review 12 the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 13 otherwise”) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 14 Ariz. 2003 ) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no 15 obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established 16 within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992 , 1000 17 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an 18 objection is made to the R & R.”) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 19 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) 20 (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the 21 opportunity to do so, and holding that, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and 22 Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155 , 1157 23 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 24 The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Rodriguez’s recommendation, and ADOPTS 25 the Report [Doc. 32] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 26 incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS the motion [Doc. 27], AWARDS 27 the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., CPC $14,000 in attorney’s fees, and [28] 1 |} ORDERS the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., CPC to reimburse Plaintiff 2 ||Rosemary V. $4,212.59 for previously-awarded EAJA fees. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: January 9, 2024 \ 6 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 7 United States District Judge