Lee v. Kijakazi

Opinion

MICHAEL L., Case No.: 23cv1967-CAB-VET

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