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.

James Russell v. Michael J. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 11, 2013

JAMES RUSSELL,
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. 13]; (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 11]; (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 12]; AND (4) REMANDING CASE

On July 26, 2011, Plaintiff James Russell 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. [Doc. 1.] The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. [Doc. 11; Doc. 12.]

On February 15, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 13.] The Report also ordered that any objection was to be filed by March 1, 2013. (Id. at 28.) 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 Adler's recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report in its entirety [Doc. 13]. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 11], DENIES Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment [Doc. 12], and REMANDS the case to the Social Security Administration for proceedings consistent with the Report. Upon remand, the district court clerk shall close the district court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130311

© 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.