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

Opinion

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