Hampton v. Commissioner of Social Security

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JANICE H., Case No.: 22-cv-1833 W (MSB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC.

18], (2) GRANTING IN PART MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of PLAINTIFF’S MERITS BRIEF Social Security Administration, 15 [DOC. 12], AND (3) REMANDING Defendant. CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 18 On November 21, 2022, Plaintiff Janice H. filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s application for Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits.

21 (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 1.) The matter was referred to the Honorable Michael S. Berg, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 23 636(b)(1)(B).

24 On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed her merits brief [Doc. 12]. On May 30, 2023, Defendant filed its opposition [Doc. 16] and on June 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed her reply [Doc. 17]. On February 21, 2024, Judge Berg issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the Court (1) grant in part Plaintiff’s merits brief, (2) reverse the Commissioner’s decision, and (3) remand the case for further proceedings consistent with the Report. (Report [Doc. 18] 27:17–24.) The Report also ordered any objections filed no later than March 6, 2024 and any reply filed no later than March 13, 2024. (Id. 27:25–28:2.) The Report also advised the parties that “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. [Citation omitted.]” (Id. at 28:2–5.) To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to file an objection.

7 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise”) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 15 Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established within both 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.”) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 20 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.)

21 (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so, and holding that, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

25 The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Berg’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 18] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s merits brief [Doc. 12], REVERSES the Commissioner’s decision and ORDERS the case ||, REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report.

3 The Clerk shall close the District Court case file.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 ||Dated: March 18, 2024 \ 7 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan 8 Unted States District Judge