UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 29, 2013
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Thomas J. WhelanUnited States District Judge
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION, AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
Plaintiff Rin Lay filed this lawsuit on May 23, 2011. The lawsuit challenges a portion of the Administrative Law Judge's decision of January 22, 2011 that concluded Plaintiff was not disabled and did not qualify for disability benefits for the period of November 17, 2004 through July 1, 2006.
On February 12, 2013, the Honorable Karen S. Crawford, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). The Report recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's summary-judgment motion and grant Defendant's summary-judgment motion. The Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Report. To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to file an objection.
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
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 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 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 RenyaTapia, 328 F.3d 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopted Report without review because neither party filed objections to the Report despite the opportunity to do so, "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 Crawford'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 DENIES Plaintiff's summary-judgment motion [Doc. 26], and GRANTS Defendant's summary-judgment motion [Doc. 27].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.