Scott v. Colvin

Filing 21

ORDER: (1) Adopting re 20 Report and Recommendation, (2) Denying 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Granting 18 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk shall close the District Court case file. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 8/23/2017. (jao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

KAREN S. SCOTT,

Case No.: 16-cv-1773 W (BGS)
Plaintiff,

14
15

v.

16

ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 20],
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [DOC. 15], AND
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [DOC. 18]

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

17

Defendant.

18
19
20
21
22

On July 8, 2016, Plaintiff Karen S. Scott filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review

23

of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying her claim for disability

24

insurance benefits and supplemental social security income. The matter was referred to

25

the Honorable Bernard G. Skomal, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and

26

recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Thereafter, the parties filed cross-

27

motions for summary judgment.

28
1
16-cv-1773 W (BGS)

1

On August 8, 2017, Judge Skomal issued a Report and Recommendation

2

(“Report”), recommending the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and

3

grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (Report [Doc. 20] 32:13–18.)

4

The Report also ordered any objections filed by August 22, 2017. (Id. at 32:21–23.) To

5

date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which

6

to file an objection.

7

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

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

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

13

the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not

14

otherwise”) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D.

15

Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no

16

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

17

within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000

18

n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an

19

objection is made to the R & R.”) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at

20

1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.)

21

(adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the

22

opportunity to do so, and holding that, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and

23

Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157

24

(S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

25

The Court therefore accepts Judge Skomal’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the

26

Report [Doc. 20] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is

27

incorporated herein by reference, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary

28
2
16-cv-1773 W (BGS)

1

judgment [Doc. 15] and GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment

2

[Doc. 18]. The Clerk shall close the District Court case file.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 23, 2017

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16-cv-1773 W (BGS)