Aviles v. Colvin

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 11/19/2015.(knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

YOLANDA AVILES,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No.: 14CV2830 BEN (BLM)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant.

[Docket Nos. 16, 17, 19]

15
16
17

Plaintiff Yolanda Aviles filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social

18

Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and

19

supplemental security income. (Docket No. 1.) A briefing schedule was issued. (Docket

20

No. 15.) Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 16.) Defendant

21

filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion.

22

(Docket Nos. 17-18.)

23

On October 23, 2015, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued a thoughtful and

24

thorough Report and Recommendation recommending this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion

25

for Summary Judgment and grant Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

26

(Docket No. 19.) Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due

27

November 13, 2015. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections. For the reasons that
1
14CV2830 BEN (BLM)

1
2

follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a

3

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.

4

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and

5

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

6

However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate

7

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”

8

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also

9

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor

10

the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations

11

that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

12

The Court need not conduct a de novo review given the absence of objections.

13

However, the Court has conducted a de novo review and fully ADOPTS the Report and

14

Recommendation. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and

15

Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk shall close

16

the file.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: November 19, 2015

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
14CV2830 BEN (BLM)