Marshall v. Colvin

Filing 24

ORDER:(1) Adopting 23 Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying 17 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Granting 18 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The clerk is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 2/23/2017. (jao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARL ANDREW MARSHALL,

Case No.: 15-CV-2436-W (JLB)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER:

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

15
16

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 23];
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [DOC. 17]; AND

Defendant.

17
18

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [DOC. 18]

19
20
21

On October 28, 2015, Plaintiff Carl Andrew Marshall filed this action seeking

22

judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying his claim

23

for disability insurance benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. (See Compl. [Doc.

24

1].) The matter was referred to the Honorable Jill L. Burkhardt, United States Magistrate

25

Judge, for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (Nov. 19,

26

2015 Order [Doc. 5].) Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

27

(Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 17]; Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 18].)

28
1
15-CV-2436-W (JLB)

1

On January 31, 2017, Judge Burkhardt issued a Report and Recommendation

2

(“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

3

and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (R&R [Doc. 23].) Judge

4

Burkhardt ordered that any objections be filed by February 14, 2017. (Id. [Doc. 23]

5

24:27–25:2.) No objections were filed. There has been no request for additional time to

6

object.
A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and

7
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. 2003)

12

(reasoning that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must

13

review the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made,

14

but not otherwise”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)

15

(concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to

16

review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established within both the

17

Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir.

18

2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is

19

made to the R & R[.]”) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395

20

F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting the R&R without review

21

because neither party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so); see also

22

Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).
Accordingly, the Court accepts Judge Burkhardt’s recommendation and ADOPTS

23
24

the R&R [Doc. 23] in its entirety.

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
2
15-CV-2436-W (JLB)

1

For the reasons stated in the R&R, which is incorporated herein by reference, the

2

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 17] and GRANTS

3

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. 18].

4

Judgment is entered for Defendant. The clerk is directed to close the case.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2017

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
15-CV-2436-W (JLB)