Schalik v. Colvin

Filing 19

ORDER: (1) Adopting 18 Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Granting 15 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk shall close the District Court case file. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 9/26/2017. (jao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

BRIAN ALLEN SCHALIK,

Case No.: 16-cv-2059 W (KSC)
Plaintiff,

14
15

v.

16

ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 18],
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [DOC. 14], AND
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [DOC. 15]

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,

17
18

Defendant.

19
20
21
22

On August 16, 2016, Plaintiff Brian Allen Schalik filed this lawsuit seeking

23

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

24

for disability insurance benefits. The matter was referred to the Honorable Karen S.

25

Crawford, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28

26

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary

27

judgment.

28
1
16-cv-2059 W (KSC)

1

On August 7, 2017, Judge Crawford 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. 18] 14:12–15.)

4

The Report also ordered any objections filed within fourteen (14) days after being served

5

with a copy of the Report. (Id. at 14:18–20.) To date, no objection has been filed, nor

6

has there been a request for additional time in which 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 Crawford’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the

26

Report [Doc. 18] 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-2059 W (KSC)

1

judgment [Doc. 14] and GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment

2

[Doc. 15]. The Clerk shall close the District Court case file.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 26, 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-2059 W (KSC)