Barkzai v. Berryhill

Filing 20

ORDER (1) Adopting 19 Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying 13 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Granting 14 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (4) Dismissing Case With Prejudice. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 7/23/2018. (jao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SORAYA BARKZAI,

Case No.: 17-CV-1692 W (RNB)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER:

NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

15
16

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 19];
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [DOC. 13];

Defendant.

17
18

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [DOC. 14]; AND

19
20
21

(4) DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE

22
23
24

On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff Soraya Barkzai filed this action seeking judicial

25

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

26

Supplemental Security Income. (See Compl. [Doc. 1].) The matter was referred to a

27

United States Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

28
1
17-CV-1692 W (RNB)

1

636(b)(1). (August 23, 2017 Order [Doc. 4].) Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions

2

for summary judgment. (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 13]; Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 14].)

3

On June 26, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Robert Block issued a Report

4

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

5

summary judgment, grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and dismiss this

6

action with prejudice. (R&R [Doc. 23] 10–11.) Judge Block ordered that any objections

7

to the R&R be filed within two weeks of service of the R&R—or July 10, 2018. (See id.)

8

No objections were filed. There has been no request for additional time to 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 Federal Rule of

11

Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the

12

district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

13

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (reasoning that 28

14

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

15

judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise”);

16

Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that

17

where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to review the

18

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

19

Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005)

20

(“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the

21

R & R[.]”) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d

22

946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting the R&R without review because neither

23

party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan,

24

355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).
In light of the foregoing, the Court accepts Judge Block’s recommendation and

25
26

ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 19] in its entirety.

27

//

28
2
17-CV-1692 W (RNB)

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. 13], GRANTS

3

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 14], and DISMISSES this case with

4

prejudice.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 23, 2018

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17-CV-1692 W (RNB)