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.

Rodney A. Joseph v. Michael J. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 1, 2013

RODNEY A. JOSEPH,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
DEFENDANT.

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

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 17]; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 14]; AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 15]

On December 9, 2011, Plaintiff Rodney A. Joseph filed a complaint in this Court seeking judicial review of Defendant Social Security Administration Commissioner's final decision denying his claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. [Doc. 1.] On May 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, which Defendant timely opposed. [Doc. 14; Doc. 15.] On July 3, 2013, Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 15.]

On December 12, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 17.] The Report also ordered that any objection was to be filed by February 22, 2012. (Id. at 13.) To date, neither party has filed an objection or made a request for additional time to do so.

A district court's duties concerning a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and a party'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) (en banc) (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. 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 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 Renya-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

Accordingly, the Court accepts Magistrate Judge Crawford's recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report in its entirety [Doc. 17]. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 14] and GRANTS Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment [Doc. 15]. The district court clerk shall close the district court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130301

© 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.