Steele v. Berryhill

Filing 23

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the R&R (Dkt. No. 21 ), finds it to be correct, and adopts it. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 17 ) is denied and Defendant's cross-motion (Dkt. No. 18 ) is granted. The administrative law judge's decision is affirmed and this action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 9/18/2018. (jdt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JO ANN STEELE,

Case No.: 17cv1923-LAB (RNB)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

15
16

Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Jo Ann Steele filed her complaint, seeking review of denial of social
security disability benefits. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert
N. Block for report and recommendation. After receiving briefing, on June 5, Judge
Block issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R”).

It found that the

administrative law judge properly denied benefits, and recommended affirming that
judge’s decision and dismissing the action with prejudice.
The deadline for objecting to the R&R has passed, and no objections were
filed. A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge
must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has
been properly objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify,

1
17cv1923-LAB (RNB)

1

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

2

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This section does not require some lesser review by

3

the district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–

4

50 (1985). The “statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the

5

magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made,

6

but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

7

2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

8

The Court has reviewed the R&R, finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it.

9

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED and Defendant’s cross-motion

10

is GRANTED. The administrative law judge’s decision is AFFIRMED and this

11

action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 18, 2018

15
16
17

Hon. Larry Alan Burns
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17cv1923-LAB (RNB)