Avina v. Berryhill

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 19, 2019
• Docket: 3:18-cv-01728
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISIS AVINA, Case No.: 18-CV-1728-W (MSB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 ANDREW SAUL, RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 22]; Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 16 MOTION FOR SUMMARY 17 JUDGMENT [DOC. 15];

18 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 19 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 16]; AND 20

21 (4) REMANDING CASE

22 23 On April 9, 2018, Plaintiff Isis Avina filed this action seeking judicial review of 24 the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying her claim for a period of 25 disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Title II and Title 26 XVI of the Social Security Act. (See Compl. [Doc. 1].) The matter was referred to the 27 Honorable Michael Berg, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and 28 recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (See Aug. 10, 2018 Order [Doc. 6]; 1 Order of Transfer [Doc. 14].) Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary 2 judgment. (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 15]; Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 16].) 3 On August 5, 2019, Judge Berg issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 4 recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, deny 5 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and remand this action for further 6 proceedings. (R&R [Doc. 22] p. 17.) Judge Berg ordered that any objections be filed by 7 August 16, 2019. (Id.) No objections were filed. There has been no request for 8 additional time to object. 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 (reasoning that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must 15 review the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, 16 but not otherwise”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) 17 (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to 18 review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established within both the 19 Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 20 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is 21 made to the R & R[.]”) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 22 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting the R&R without review 23 because neither party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so); see also 24 Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, the Court accepts Judge Berg’s recommendation and ADOPTS the 2 ||R&R [Doc. 22] in its entirety. 3 For the reasons stated in the R&R, which is incorporated herein by reference, the 4 || Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 15], and DENIES 5 || Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 16]. 6 This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: August 19, 2019 \ [pe Dor 12 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 13 Unted States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28