Vinck v. Berryhill

Opinion

ROSEMARY V., Case No.: 19-cv-715 W (LR)

Plaintiff, ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 32]; AND (2) GRANTING KILOLO KIJAKAZI,2 Acting MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Commissioner of Social Security, UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) [DOC. 27] Defendants Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (See Motion [Doc. 27].) On May 26, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the Court (1) grant the motion (2) award the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., CPC $14,000 in attorney’s fees, and (3) order the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., CPC to reimburse Plaintiff Rosemary V. $4,212.59 for previously-awarded EAJA fees. (Report [Doc. 32] 7:22–27.) The Report also ordered any objections filed no later than June 12, 2023, and any reply filed by June 20, 2023. (Id. at 8:1–5.) 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 Rodriguez’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 32] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS the motion [Doc. 27], AWARDS the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., CPC $14,000 in attorney’s fees, and } ORDERS the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., CPC to reimburse Plaintiff Rosemary V. $4,212.59 for previously-awarded EAJA fees. Dated: January 9, 2024 \ Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan United States District Judge