Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brad K. Buckley v. Michael J. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 25, 2013

BRAD K. BUCKLEY,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Thomas J. Whelan United States District Judge

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION [DOC. 19], (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION [DOC. 20] [DOC. 22], (2) DENYING

On June 24, 2011, Plaintiff Brad K. Buckley filed a complaint in this Court under the Social Security Act seeking judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of his Supplemental Security Income claim. On June 24, 2011, the Court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for a Report and Recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. On April 13, 2012, Judge Adler transferred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

On December 27, 2012, Judge Crawford issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's summary-judgment motion and grant Defendant's summary-judgment motion. (See Report [Doc. 22], 9:3--5.) The Report also required the parties to file any objections by February 1, 2013, and file any replies to objections by February 15, 2013. (Id. at 9:7-10.) To date, the parties have filed no objections and have not requested additional time to file objections.

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 parties file no objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a district court need not review that 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 findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise")(emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Arizona 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge's Report). This rule is well established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005)(stating "[o]f course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.")(emphasis added)(citing Renya-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 to the Report despite the opportunity to do so, stating, "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.).

Therefore, the Court accepts Judge Crawford's Report, and ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 22] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's summary-judgment motion [Doc. 19]and GRANTS Defendant's summary-judgment motion [Doc. 20]. The district court clerk shall close the district court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130225

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.