1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No. 5:24-cv-00539-FWS-PD 11

12 JOSEPH ROBERT WARD, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 CONCLUSIONS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [16] 15 v. AND OVERRULING OBJECTIONS [17] 16 MARTIN OMALLEY, 17 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINSTRATION, 18

19 Defendant. 20 21 22 I. Introduction and Relevant Procedural History 23 Before the court is the Magistrate Judge’s March 20, 2025, Report and 24 Recommendation. (Dkt. 16 (“Report and Recommendation” or “R&R”).) Based on 25 the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court ADOPTS the Report 26 and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge, including each of the findings 27 of fact and conclusions of law therein. 28 1 In summary, on March 13, 2025, Plaintiff Joseph Robert Ward (“Plaintiff”)

2 filed a Complaint against Defendant Martin O’Malley (“Defendant”), Commissioner

3 of Social Security Administration. (Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”).) On May 14, 2024,

4 Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint. (Dkt. 11.) On June 12, 2024, Plaintiff

5 filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 12 (“Motion for Summary Judgment” or

6 “Motion”).) On July 15, 2024, Defendant filed the Commissioner’s Brief requesting

7 the court to affirm the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. (Dkt. 13 (“Brief”).) On

8 July 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of the Motion. (Dkt. 14 (“Reply”).)

9 On March 20, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation.

10 (Dkt. 16) On April 2, 2025, Petitioner objected to the Report and Recommendation. 11 (Dkt. 17 (“Objections”).) 12 II. Discussion 13 “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 14 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 15 § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (stating “[t]he district judge must 16 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 17 properly objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 18 recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 19 magistrate judge with instructions”). Proper objections require “specific written 20 objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of 22 those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to 23 which objection is made.”

(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna- 24 Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the 25 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 26 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Where no objection has been made, 27 arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See

(b)(1)(C) 28 (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file 1 written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by

2 rules of court.”). Moreover, “[o]bjections to a R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the

3 same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.” Chith v.

4 Haynes,

, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021).

5 In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that

6 the court issue an order:

7 (1) accepting this Report and Recommendation; (2) denying Plaintiff’s

8 Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) entering judgment in the Acting Commissioner’s favor; and (4) dismissing this action with prejudice. 9

10 (Report and Recommendation at 28.) 11 In the Objections, Plaintiff makes several arguments, including, in summary, 12 that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly found that any errors arising from the 13 Administrative Law Judge’s findings were harmless. (Objections at 2-9.) After 14 conducting a de novo review of the Objections, the court agrees with each of the 15 findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and Recommendation, 16 including each of the recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 17 arguments set forth in the Objections are OVERRULED on the merits. 18 In sum, pursuant to

, the court has reviewed the record, 19 including the Report and Recommendation, the Motion, the Brief, the Reply, and the 20 other records of the case. After conducting a de novo review of the Objections, the 21 court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in 22 the Report and Recommendation. 23 III. Conclusion 24 Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court 25 adopts the Report and Recommendation and accepts each of the findings of fact and 26 conclusions of law therein. Accordingly, the court ORDERS the following: 27 (1) The Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. 28 1 (3) This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2 3 Lo L/S /—mn~ 5 | Dated: April 10, 2025 Hon. Fred W. Slaughter 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28