Coffman v. Astrue

Filing 23

ORDER (1) Adopting (Doc. 22 ) Report and Recommendation Without an Objection; (2) Granting-In-Part and Denying-In-Part (Doc. 16 ) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Denying (Doc. 18 ) Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 7/2/2010. (cap)

Download PDF
Coffman v. Astrue Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiff Christopher Coffman ("Plaintiff") brought this action pursuant to the 27 Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(g), to obtain judicial review of a final decision of 28 the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. ("Defendant") Magistrate -108 cv 1924 W (CAB) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHRISTOPHER COFFMAN, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 08-CV-1924 W (CAB) 1) ADOPTS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT AN OBJECTION (Doc. No. 22.) 2) GRANTS-IN-PART AND DENIES-IN-PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT(Doc. No. 16.) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commisioner of Social Security, Defendant. 3) DENIES DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 18.) vs. Dockets.Justia.com 1 Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo has issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") 2 recommending that this Court grant-in-part and deny-in-part Plaintiff's pending motion 3 for summary judgment and deny Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The 4 Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed by June 30, 2010. (Report at 11.) 5 To date, no objection to that has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional 6 time in which to 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 28 U.S.C. 636(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, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 12 2003)(holding that 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c) "makes it clear that the district judge must 13 review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, 14 but not otherwise")(emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 15 1226 (D. Arizona 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District 16 Court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge's Report). This rule of law is 17 well established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 18 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005)("Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only 19 required when an objection is made to the R & R.")(emphasis added)(citing Renya20 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) 21 (Lorenz, J.) (adopted Report without review because neither party filed objections to the 22 Report despite the opportunity to do so, "accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report 23 and Recommendation in its entirety."); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 24 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 25 The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Bencivengo's recommendation and 26 ADOPTS the Report in its entirety. (Doc. No. 22.) For the reasons stated in the 27 Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and 28 DENIES-IN-PART Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 16) and -208 cv 1924 W (CAB) 1 DENIES Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 18.) Plaintiff's 2 case is hereby REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further 3 proceedings and a decision in accordance with the applicable law. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -308 cv 1924 W (CAB) IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 2, 2010 Hon. Thomas J. Whelan United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?