Zoro v. O'Malley

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOFEDA Z., Case No. 24-cv-2224-MMA-DDL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION

14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner

of Social Security,1 15 [Doc. No. 20] Defendant. 16 17

18 19 On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff Mofeda Z. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security 20 appeal challenging the denial of an application for disability insurance benefits. See Doc. 21 No. 1. The Court referred all matters arising in this social security appeal to the assigned 22 magistrate judge for report and recommendation pursuant to Section 636(b)(1)(B) of Title 23 28 of the United States Code, and Civil Local Rule 72.1. See Doc. No. 12. 24 25

26 1 Frank Bisignano is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Therefore, pursuant to Federal 27 Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Frank Bisignano is substituted for Martin O’Malley as the defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be taken, pursuant to the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social 28 1 The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s Report and 2 Recommendation (“R&R”) are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 3 Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a R&R, “[a] judge of 4 the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] or 5 specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. 6 § 636(b)(1)(C); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). When no objections 7 are filed, the district court need not review the R&R de novo. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 8 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121– 9 22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district judge may nevertheless “accept, reject, or 10 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate 11 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 12 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006). 13 Here, neither party objected to the R&R. The time for filing objections has 14 expired. See Doc. No. 20 at 19 (objections due by September 9, 2025). Having reviewed 15 the R&R, the Court finds that Judge Leshner has issued a thorough and well-reasoned 16 Report recommending that the Court affirm the decision of the Commissioner and 17 contains no clear error. See Doc. No. 20. 18 The Court has made a review and determination in accordance with the 19 requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Upon due consideration, the 20 Court ADOPTS Judge Leshner’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and 21 AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Court DIRECTS 22 the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: September 22, 2025 25 _____________________________ 26 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 27 28