Hampton v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANICE H., Case No.: 22-cv-1833 W (MSB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 18], (2) GRANTING IN PART 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of PLAINTIFF’S MERITS BRIEF Social Security Administration, 15 [DOC. 12], AND (3) REMANDING Defendant. CASE FOR FURTHER 16 PROCEEDINGS 17 18 On November 21, 2022, Plaintiff Janice H. filed this lawsuit seeking judicial 19 review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s 20 application for Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. 21 (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 1.) The matter was referred to the Honorable Michael S. Berg, United 22 States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 23 636(b)(1)(B). 24 On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed her merits brief [Doc. 12]. On May 30, 2023, 25 Defendant filed its opposition [Doc. 16] and on June 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed her reply 26 [Doc. 17]. On February 21, 2024, Judge Berg issued a Report and Recommendation 27 (“Report”), recommending the Court (1) grant in part Plaintiff’s merits brief, (2) reverse 28 the Commissioner’s decision, and (3) remand the case for further proceedings consistent 1 with the Report. (Report [Doc. 18] 27:17–24.) The Report also ordered any objections 2 filed no later than March 6, 2024 and any reply filed no later than March 13, 2024. (Id. 3 27:25–28:2.) The Report also advised the parties that “failure to file objections within 4 the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s 5 order. [Citation omitted.]” (Id. at 28:2–5.) To date, no objection has been filed, nor has 6 there been a request for additional time in which to file an objection. 7 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 8 recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 9 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 10 filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 11 recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 12 (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must review 13 the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 14 otherwise”) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 15 Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no 16 obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established 17 within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 18 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an 19 objection is made to the R & R.”) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 20 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) 21 (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the 22 opportunity to do so, and holding that, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and 23 Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 24 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 25 The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Berg’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the 26 Report [Doc. 18] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 27 incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s merits brief 28 1 [Doc. 12], REVERSES the Commissioner’s decision and ORDERS the case 2 ||, REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report. 3 The Clerk shall close the District Court case file. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ||Dated: March 18, 2024 \

7 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan 8 Unted States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28