Cortina v. Kijakazi

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 ALBERTO C., Case No.: 22-cv-1669 W (MMP) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 21], (2) REVERSING THE 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of COMMISSIONER’S DECISION, Social Security Administration, 15 AND (3) REMANDING CASE FOR Defendant. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS [16] [DOC. 14] [17] 18 On October 26, 2022, Plaintiff Alberto C. filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review 19 of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for 20 Supplemental Security Income benefits. (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶¶ 9, 10.) The matter was 21 referred to the Honorable Michelle M. Pettit, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report 22 and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B).1 23 On August 16, 2023, the parties filed a joint motion for judicial review of the 24 Commissioner’s decision. (See Jt. Mot. [Doc. 20].) On February 6, 2024, Judge Pettit 25 issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the Court (1) reverse [27] 1 The matter was initially referred to Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard, but then subsequently [28] 1 the Commissioner’s decision, and (3) remand the case for further proceedings consistent 2 with the Report’s findings. (Report [Doc. 21] 20:24–27.) The Report also ordered any 3 objections filed no later than February 20, 2024 and any reply filed no later than March 5, 4 2024. (Id. 21:1–5.) The Report also advised the parties that “failure to file objections 5 within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the 6 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). ” (Id. at 21:5–7.) To date, 7 no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to 8 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 Pettit’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the 28 Report [Doc. 21] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 1 ||incorporated herein by reference, the Court REVERSES the Commissioner’s decision 2 ||and ORDERS the case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the 3 || Report’s findings. 4 The Clerk shall close the District Court case file. 5 IT ISSO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: March 18, 2024 \ ihe Dor 8 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 9 United States District Judge