Saucedo Herrera v. Colvin

Filing 24

ORDER: (1) Adopting 23 Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Granting 22 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Judgment is entered for Defendant. The clerk is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 3/1/2017. (jao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIA D. SAUCEDO HERRERA,

Case No.: 15-CV-2572 W (KSC)

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. 19]; AND

Defendant.

17
18

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [DOC. 22]

19
20
21

On November 16, 2015, Plaintiff Maria Saucedo Herrera filed this action seeking

22

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

23

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

24

1].) The matter was referred to the Honorable Karen S. Crawford, United States

25

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

26

(Dec. 7, 2015 Order [Doc. 6].) Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary

27

judgment. (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 19]; Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 22].)

28
1
15-CV-2572 W (KSC)

1

On February 9, 2017, Judge Crawford 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

Crawford ordered that any objections be filed within 14 days of service of that order,

5

which took place electronically on February 9, 2017 via the Court’s electronic case filing

6

system. (Id. [Doc. 23] 33:11–16.) 14 days after February 9 was February 23, 2017. No

7

objections were filed by that date. There has been no request for additional time to

8

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

9
10

recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the

11

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are

12

filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25
26

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

27

//

28

//
2
15-CV-2572 W (KSC)

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. 19] and GRANTS

3

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. 22].

4

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

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 1, 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-2572 W (KSC)