1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 PHILLIP JACOB KORNGOLD, Case No.: 18-cv-2078 W (MDD)

14 Plaintiff, ORDER: 15 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 21]; 16 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Social Security, 17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY Defendant. JUDGMENT [DOC. 16]; 18 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 19 CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 19]; AND 20 (4) REMANDING CASE 21 22 On September 7, 2018, Plaintiff Phillip Korngold filed this lawsuit seeking judicial 23 review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for 24 Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. (See Compl. [Doc. 25 1].) The matter was referred to the Honorable Mitchell D. Dembin, United States 26 Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under

(b)(1)(B). (See 27 Sept. 10, 2018 Order [Doc. 3].) Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary 28 judgment. (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 16]; Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 19].) 1 On August 29, 2019, Judge Dembin issued a Report and Recommendation 2 (“Report”), recommending the Court remand the case for further proceedings. (Report 3 [Doc. 21] 8:15–16.) The Report also ordered any objections filed no later than 4 September 12, 2019, and any reply filed by September 19, 2019. (Id. 8:21–9:6.) To date, 5 no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to 6 file an objection. 7 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 8 recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 9 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

(b)(1). When no objections are 10 filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 11 recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) 12 (holding that

(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must review 13 the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 14 otherwise”) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone,

(D.

) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no 16 obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established 17 within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis,

, 1000 18 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an 19 objection is made to the R & R.”) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia,

1121); Nelson v. Giurbino,

(S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) 21 (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the 22 opportunity to do so, and holding that, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and 23 Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan,

, 1157 24 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 25 The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Dembin’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the 26 Report [Doc. 21] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is 27 incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary 28 1 judgment [Doc. 16], DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. 2 || 19], and REMANDS the matter for further proceedings. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: September 13, 2019 \

7 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan 8 Unted States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28