Anderson v. Kijakazi

Opinion

LARRY A., Case No.: 23-cv-1101 W (DTF)

Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 13], (2) REVERSING FINAL MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of DECISION OF THE Social Security Administration, Defendant. (3) REMANDING CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff Larry A. filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 1.) On May 1, 2024, the matter was transferred to the Honorable D. Thomas Ferraro, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (See Minute Order of Transfer [Doc. 12].1) 1 The matter was previously assigned to another Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation. On July 30, 2024, the matter was transferred to Magistrate Judge Benjamin J. Cheeks. (See Minute Order of On December 27, 2023, the parties filed the Joint Motion for Judicial Review [Doc. 11]. On July 8, 2024, Judge Ferraro issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the Court reverse the Commissioner’s final decision and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with the Report. (Report [Doc. 13] 16:11–12.) The Report also ordered any objections filed no later than July 22, 2024 and any reply filed no later than July 29, 2024. (Id. 16:15–18.) The Report also advised the parties that “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. [Citation omitted.]” (Id. at 16:18–20.) To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to file an objection. A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise”) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so, and holding that, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Ferraro’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 13] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court REVERSES the Commissioner’s final decision and ORDERS the case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report. The Clerk shall close the District Court case file. Dated: August 12, 2024 \

Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan ll Unted States District Judge