United States District Court, S.D. California
August 4, 2014
GREGORY A. BROUCKAERT, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN ITS ENTIRETY; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECFs 20, 10, 15-1)
CYNTHIA BASHANT, District Judge.
On June 27, 2013, Plaintiff Gregory Brouckaert, filed a complaint pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits. ECF 1. On September 19, 2013, the Commissioner filed an answer. ECF 7. On October 25, 2013, Brouckaert filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting reversal of the Administrative Law Judge's final decision. ECF 10. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and opposed Brouckaert's motion. ECFs 15-1, 16. The Commissioner argued that the Administrative Law Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence, free from legal error, and should be affirmed.
On July 10, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that this Court grant the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment and deny Brouckaert's motion. ECF 20. Judge Skomal ordered any objections to be filed by July 25, 2014, and any replies by August 1, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so.
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. But "[t]he statute 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." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see also 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). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Id. "When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived." Marshall v. Astrue, No. 08cv1735, 2010 WL 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so).
In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on July 25, 2014. However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Having nonetheless conducted a de novo review of Brouckaert's and the Commissioners motions for summary judgment, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS the report in its entirety (ECF 20), and GRANTS the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (ECF 15-1). The Court DENIES Brouckaert's motion for summary judgment. ECF 10. Moreover, because reasonable jurists would not find the Court's assessment of the claims debatable or wrong, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
IT IS SO ORDERED.