Royal v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 CYNTHIA ROYAL, Case No. 21-cv-1612-BAS-LR

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting RECOMMENDATION IN ITS Commissioner of the Social Security 15 ENTIRETY (ECF No. 22); Administration

16 Defendant. (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 15); 18

19 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR 20 SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF 21 No. 19); and

22 (4) REMANDING FOR FURTHER

25 On September 15, 2021, Plaintiff Cynthia Royal (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint 26 against Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security 27 (“Defendant”), seeking judicial review of Defendant’s decision to deny Plaintiff disability 28 insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 423. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff moved for 1 summary judgment on June 24, 2022, seeking a remand for a new hearing and decision. 2 (ECF No. 15.) In response, Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, requesting 3 that the Court uphold Defendant’s decision. (ECF No. 19.) The Court then referred this 4 matter to United States Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr., who issued a Report and 5 Recommendation (“R&R”) on January 23, 2023, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for 6 summary judgment be granted, that Defendant’s cross-motion be denied, and that the 7 matter be remanded for further administrative proceedings. (R&R, ECF No. 22.) 8 The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on February 13, 2023. (R&R at 9 35.) Both parties are represented by counsel, but to date, neither party has filed any 10 objections. 12 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), where, as here, a district court designates a magistrate 13 judge to “hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court,” the district 14 judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 15 made by the magistrate judge.” That statute makes clear the district court must review the 16 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo “if objection is made, but not 17 otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 18 Neither the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 19 findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. at 1221. 20 This rule of law is well-established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. 21 Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R&R 22 is only required when an objection is made to the R&R.”); Nelson v. Glurbino, 395 F. Supp. 23 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither 24 party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so); accord Schmidt v. 25 Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no 26 objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s 27 report). 28 1 In this case, the deadline for filing objections was February 13, 2023. However, no 2 ||objections have been filed and neither party has requested additional time to do so. 3 || Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 4 at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the parties’ competing 5 ||motions for summary judgment and the R&R, this Court concludes Judge Rodriguez’s 6 || reasoning 1s sound and accurate in recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion 7 ||for summary judgment, deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and 8 ||remand this action to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings. Therefore, 9 Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 10 || 636(b)(1). 12 Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS IN 13 |} ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. (ECF No. 22). Accordingly, the Court further GRANTS 14 || Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15), DENIES Defendant’s cross- 15 |}motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19), and REMANDS this action for further 16 || proceedings consistent with this Order and the R&R. 18 || DATED: February 14, 2023 Cypillg (Hiphanr 6 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28