Riegel v. Colvin

Filing 23

ORDER: (1) Adopting Report and Recommendation; (2) Granting Defendant's 20 Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Denying Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 8/30/2016.(ag)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEBORAH LYNN RIEGEL, Case No.: 15-CV-1342 W (MDD) Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER: CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 16 (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 22]; (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 20]; AND Defendant. 17 18 (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 16]; 19 20 21 On June 18, 2015, Plaintiff Deborah Lynn Riegel filed this action seeking judicial 22 review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying her claim for 23 benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. (See Compl. [Doc. 1].) The matter was 24 referred to the Honorable Mitchell D. Dembin, United States Magistrate Judge, for a 25 report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (Oct. 5, 2015 Order 26 [Doc. 10].) Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Pl.’s 27 Mot. [Doc. 16]; Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 20].) 28 1 15-CV-1342 W (MDD) On August 3, 2016, Judge Dembin issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 1 2 recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, deny 3 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and dismiss the case. (R&R [Doc. 22].) Judge 4 Dembin ordered that any objections be filed by August 17, 2016. (Id. [Doc. 22] 28:24– 5 29:2.) No objections were filed. There has been no request for additional time to object. A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 6 7 recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 9 filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 10 recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 11 (reasoning that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must 12 review the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, 13 but not otherwise”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) 14 (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to 15 review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established within both the 16 Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 17 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is 18 made to the R & R[.]”) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 19 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting the R&R without review 20 because neither party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so); see also 21 Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 2 15-CV-1342 W (MDD) 1 2 3 Because no objections have been filed, the Court accepts Judge Dembin’s recommendation and ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 22] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the R&R, which is incorporated herein by reference, the 4 Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 20] and DENIES 5 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 16.] 6 This case is dismissed. The clerk is directed to close the case file. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 30, 2016 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 15-CV-1342 W (MDD)

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?