Naddour v. Colvin

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Court adopts 17 Report and Recommendation in its entirety, grants Pla's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment, and denies Dft's 13 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Court remands this action for further proceedings consistent with this Order and the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 9/23/2014. (jah)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MYASSAR ELIAS NADDOUR, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 15 16 17 18 19 ORDER: (1) ADOPTING IN REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITS ENTIRETY; 13 14 Case No. 13-cv-1407-BAS(WVG) CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND 20 (4) REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 21 [ECF Nos. 17, 11, 13] 22 23 On June 13, 2013, Plaintiff Myassar Elias Naddour filed a complaint appealing 24 the decision of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denying him disability insurance 25 benefits. The Court then referred this matter to United States Magistrate William V. 26 Gallo, who issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on August 4, 2014, 27 recommending that this Court: (1) grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; (2) 28 deny Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin’s cross-motion for summary judgment; and (3) -1- 13cv1407 1 remand this action for further proceedings. The time for filing objections to the R&R 2 expired on September 4, 2014. (R&R 48:1–5.) Both parties are represented by 3 counsel, but to date, neither party has filed any objections. 4 5 I. ANALYSIS 6 The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are 7 made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 8 in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[t]he 9 statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings 10 and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States 11 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); 12 see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding 13 that where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the 14 magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district 15 judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves 16 accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This rule of law is well-established 17 within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 18 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an 19 objection is made to the R & R.”); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. 20 Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither 21 party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols 22 v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 23 In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on September 4, 2014. 24 However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time 25 to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See 26 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of 27 the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and the R&R, the Court concludes 28 that Judge Gallo’s reasoning is sound and accurate in recommending that this Court -2- 13cv1407 1 grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and deny Defendant’s cross-motion for 2 summary judgment. Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS 3 ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 4 5 II. CONCLUSION & ORDER 6 Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS 7 IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF No. 17), GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for 8 summary judgment (ECF No. 11), DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary 9 judgment (ECF No. 13), and REMANDS this action for further proceedings consistent 10 with this order and the R&R. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: September 23, 2014 13 Hon. Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- 13cv1407

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?