Anderson v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY A., Case No.: 23-cv-1101 W (DTF)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 13], (2) REVERSING FINAL 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of DECISION OF THE Social Security Administration, 15 COMMISSIONER AND Defendant. (3) REMANDING CASE FOR 16 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 17 18 On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff Larry A. filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of 19 the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s application for 20 Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. (Compl. 21 [Doc. 1] ¶ 1.) On May 1, 2024, the matter was transferred to the Honorable D. Thomas 22 Ferraro, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28 23 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (See Minute Order of Transfer [Doc. 12].1) 24 25 26 27 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 28 1 On December 27, 2023, the parties filed the Joint Motion for Judicial Review 2 [Doc. 11]. On July 8, 2024, Judge Ferraro issued a Report and Recommendation 3 (“Report”), recommending the Court reverse the Commissioner’s final decision and 4 remand the case for further proceedings consistent with the Report. (Report [Doc. 13] 5 16:11–12.) The Report also ordered any objections filed no later than July 22, 2024 and 6 any reply filed no later than July 29, 2024. (Id. 16:15–18.) The Report also advised the 7 parties that “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 8 appeal the district court’s order. [Citation omitted.]” (Id. at 16:18–20.) To date, no 9 objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to file 10 an objection. 11 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 12 recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 13 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 14 filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 15 recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 16 (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must review 17 the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 18 otherwise”) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 19 Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no 20 obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established 21 within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 22 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an 23 objection is made to the R & R.”) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 24 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) 25 (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the 26 opportunity to do so, and holding that, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and 27 Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 28 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 1 The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Ferraro’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the 2 Report [Doc. 13] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 3 incorporated herein by reference, the Court REVERSES the Commissioner’s final 4 || decision and ORDERS the case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with 5 || the Report. 6 The Clerk shall close the District Court case file. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: August 12, 2024 \

10 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan ll Unted States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28