Michael M. v. Frank Bisignano, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 2, 2026
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01777
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 MICHAEL M., Case No.: 24-CV-1777 W (JLB) 14 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 15 v. AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 24]; (2) GRANTING 16 FRANK BISIGNANO, Acting PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY- Commissioner of Social Security 17 JUDGMENT MOTION [DOC. 14]; Administration, (3) REVERSING THE 18 Defendant. COMMISSIONER’S DECISION; 19 AND (4) REMANDING CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 20 21 22 On October 4, 2024, Plaintiff Michael M. filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review 23 of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for 24 supplemental security income benefits. (See Compl. [Doc. 1].) The matter was referred to 25 the Honorable Jill L. Burkhardt, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and 26 recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 27 On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment. (Pl’s MSJ 28 [Doc. 24].) The motion having been fully briefed, on February 11, 2026, Magistrate 1 Judge Burkhardt issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the 2 Court (1) grant Plaintiff’s motion reversing the Commissioner’s decision, and (2) remand 3 the case for further proceedings consistent with the Report’s findings. (Report [Doc. 24] 4 20:15–18.) The Report also ordered any objections filed within 14 days of service of the 5 Report and any reply filed within 14 days of service of the objections. (Id. 20:19–23.) 6 To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional 7 time in which to file an objection. 8 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 9 recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 11 filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 12 recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 13 (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must review 14 the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 15 otherwise”) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 16 Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no 17 obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established 18 within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 19 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an 20 objection is made to the R & R.”) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 21 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) 22 (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the 23 opportunity to do so, and holding that, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and 24 Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 25 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 26 The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Burkhardt’s recommendation, and ADOPTS 27 the Report [Doc. 24] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 28 incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s summary-judgment 1 ||motion [Doc. 14] and ORDERS as follows: (1) the Commissioner’s decision is 2 || REVERSED; (2) the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the 3 || Report; and (3) JUDGEMENT shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff Michael M. and 4 ||against Defendant Commissioner. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: March 2, 2026 \ [pe Dor 8 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28