Royal v. Kijakazi

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CYNTHIA ROYAL, Case No. 21-cv-1612-BAS-LR 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting RECOMMENDATION IN ITS Commissioner of the Social Security 15 ENTIRETY (ECF No. 22); Administration Defendant. (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 15); 19 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF 21 No. 19); and (4) REMANDING FOR FURTHER 23 PROCEEDINGS

25 On September 15, 2021, Plaintiff Cynthia Royal (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”), seeking judicial review of Defendant’s decision to deny Plaintiff disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 423. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on June 24, 2022, seeking a remand for a new hearing and decision.

2 (ECF No. 15.) In response, Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, requesting that the Court uphold Defendant’s decision. (ECF No. 19.) The Court then referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr., who issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on January 23, 2023, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be granted, that Defendant’s cross-motion be denied, and that the matter be remanded for further administrative proceedings. (R&R, ECF No. 22.)

8 The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on February 13, 2023. (R&R at 35.) Both parties are represented by counsel, but to date, neither party has filed any objections.

11 I. ANALYSIS 12 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), where, as here, a district court designates a magistrate judge to “hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court,” the district judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” That statute makes clear the district court 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).

18 Neither the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. at 1221.

20 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. Glurbino, 395 F. Supp. 23 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so); accord 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).

1 In this case, the deadline for filing objections was February 13, 2023. However, no ||objections have been filed and neither party has requested additional time to do so.

3 || Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 4 at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the parties’ competing ||motions for summary judgment and the R&R, this Court concludes Judge Rodriguez’s || reasoning 1s sound and accurate in recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion ||for summary judgment, deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and ||remand this action to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings. Therefore, 9 Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 10 || 636(b)(1).

11 CONCLUSION & ORDER 12 Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS IN |} ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. (ECF No. 22). Accordingly, the Court further GRANTS || Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15), DENIES Defendant’s cross- |}motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19), and REMANDS this action for further || proceedings consistent with this Order and the R&R. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 || DATED: February 14, 2023 Cypillg (Hiphanr 6 19 United States District Judge