Francisco v. Colvin

Filing 18

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Defendant's 15 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Court adopts in its entirety 17 Report and Recommendation, and remands this action for further proceedings consistent with this Order and the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 3/10/2016. (cc: Social Security) (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GUILLERMINA FRANCISCO,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 14-cv-02905-BAS(WVG)
ORDER:
(1)

ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION IN ITS
ENTIRETY;

(2)

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT;

(3)

DENYING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS-MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
AND

(4)

REMANDING FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

v.

14
15
16
17

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant.

18
19
20
21

(ECF Nos. 17, 14, 15)

22
23

On December 9, 2014, plaintiff Guillermina Francisco (“Plaintiff”) filed a

24

complaint against Carolyn W. Colvin (“Defendant”), Acting Commissioner of Social

25

Security, seeking judicial review of Defendant’s decision to deny Plaintiff disability

26

insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Title II and Title

27

XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 301, et seq. The Court then referred this

28

matter to United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo, who issued a Report and
–1–

14cv2905

1

Recommendation (“R&R”) on February 8, 2016, recommending that Plaintiff’s

2

motion for summary judgment be granted, that Defendant’s motion be denied, and

3

that the matter be remanded for further administrative proceedings.

4

The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on February 23, 2016. (R&R

5

at p. 29.) Both parties are represented by counsel, but to date, neither party has filed

6

any objections.

7

I.

ANALYSIS

8

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are

9

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

10

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But

11

“[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

12

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

13

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

14

(emphasis in original); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226

15

(D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district court had

16

no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor

17

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

18

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

19

rule of law is well-established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v.

20

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a

21

R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”); Nelson v. Giurbino,

22

395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety

23

without review because neither party filed objections to the report despite the

24

opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D.

25

Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

26

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was February 23, 2016.

27

However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional

28

time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See
–2–

14cv2905

1

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of

2

the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and the R&R, the Court concludes

3

that Judge Gallo’s reasoning is sound and accurate in recommending that this Court

4

grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant’s cross-motion for

5

summary judgment, and remand this action to the Administrative Law Judge for

6

further proceedings. Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS

7

ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

8

II.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

9

Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS

10

IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF No. 17), GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for

11

summary judgment (ECF No. 14), DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary

12

judgment (ECF No. 15), and REMANDS this action for further proceedings

13

consistent with this order and the R&R.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

DATED: March 10, 2016

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–3–

14cv2905