United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER: (1) APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION IN ITS ENTIRETY; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (3) GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF Nos.
15, 19, 21]
Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge.
20, 2015, Plaintiff Orlanda Pradd commenced this action under
the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging
the Social Security Administration’s denial of
disability and supplemental-security-income benefits.
Thereafter, the Court referred this matter to United States
Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal, who issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) on July 21, 2016,
recommending that this Court: (1) deny Plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment, and (2) grant Defendant’s
cross-motion for summary judgment. The time for filing
objections to the R&R expired on July 29, 2016. (R&R
24:14-16.) Both parties are represented by counsel, but to
date, neither party has filed any objections.
court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R
to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It
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.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at
1121. 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.”); 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)
social-security context, the district court’s
jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the Social
Security Administration’s denial of benefits is
supported by substantial evidence in the administrative
record. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A district
court may overturn a decision to deny benefits only if it is
not supported by substantial evidence or if the decision is
based on legal error. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53
F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995); Magallenes v.
Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). The Ninth
Circuit defines substantial evidence as “more than a
mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Andrews, 53
F.3d at 1039. Determinations of credibility, resolution of
conflicts in medical testimony, and all other ambiguities are
to be resolved by the administrative law judge
(“ALJ”). See id.; Magallenes, 881 F.2d
at 750. The decision of the ALJ will be upheld if the
evidence is “susceptible to more than one rational
interpretation.” Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1040.
case, the deadline for filing objections was on July 29,
2016. 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. Nonetheless, having
conducted a de novo review of the administrative
record, the parties’ cross-motions for summary
judgment, and the R&R, the Court concludes that Judge
Skomal’s reasoning is sound and correct in recommending
that this Court deny Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment
and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary
judgment. Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN
ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. §
CONCLUSION & ORDER
light of the foregoing, the Court approves and ADOPTS IN ITS
ENTIRETY the R&R, DENIES Plaintiffs motion for summary
judgment, and GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for
summary judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Clerk of ...