Campuzano v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Campuzano v. Commissioner of Social Security

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RUBEN RUIZ CAMPUZANO, Case No.: 20-cv-721-WQH-WVG

11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 The matters before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by 18 Plaintiff Rubin Ruiz Campuzano (ECF No. 12), the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 19 filed by Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) (ECF No. 15), 20 and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 18) 21 recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant 22 the Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 23 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 24 magistrate judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28

25 U.S.C. § 636

(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions 26 of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 27 or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”

28 U.S.C. § 28

636(b)(1). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and 1 || recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis,

416 F.3d 992

, 1000 2 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(th Cir. 2003) 3 ||(en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 4 ||review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 5 || correct.”). 6 No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 7 reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) is 9 || adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) is denied. 10 || The Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is granted. The 11 Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against Plaintiff 12 || and shall close the case. 13 |} Dated: August 26, 2021 Nitta Z. A a 14 Hon, William Q. Hayes 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown