Lee v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL L., Case No.: 23cv1967-CAB-VET

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 17]; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 14 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting MOTION FOR SUMMARY Commissioner of Social Security, 15 JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 12]; and (3) Defendant. AFFIRMING THE 16 COMMISSIONER’S DECISION 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 20 Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres, filed on January 28, 2025, recommending that the 21 Court deny Plaintiff Michael L.’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 12] and 22 affirm the Commissioner’s decision. [Doc. No. 17.] 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 24 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 25 district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report to which 26 objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 27 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also 28 United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 1 || F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court 2 “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 3 || accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Cvi.P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 4 || Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. 5 || Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003)(“[T]he district judge must review the 6 || magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 7 || otherwise.”). 8 Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Torres’ R&R. 9 || [See Doc. No. 17 at 13 (objections due by February 11, 2025).] Having reviewed the 10 || R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 11 || Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Torres’ report and 12 ||recommendation; (2) DENIES plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and (3) affirms 13 || the Commissioner’s decision. 14 This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall CLOSE the file. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: February 18, 2025 (6 17 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28