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)

Download PDF
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)

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?