Opinion
Case No. 12-cv-328-W(PCL)
03-24-2014
DIANE R. HUMPHREYS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Defendant.
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING IN FULL REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC.
18];
(2) GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC.
15]; AND
(3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [DOC. 16]
On February 8, 2012, Plaintiff Diane R. Humphreys filed a complaint under Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, requesting judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. (Doc. 1.) Thereafter, the Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis, who issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court grant in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny Defendant Michael J. Astrue's cross-motion for summary judgment. (Docs. 15, 16.) The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on March 21, 2014. (R&R 19:2-9.) Both parties are represented by counsel, but to date, neither party has filed any objections.
I. DISCUSSION
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. But "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Id. "When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived." Marshall v. Astrue, No. 08cv1735, 2010 WL 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (Lorenz, J.).
In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on March 21, 2014. However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so. Accordingly, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Having conducted a de novo review of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and the R&R, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
II. CONCLUSION & ORDER
Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R (Doc. 18), GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 15), and DENIES Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. 16).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________
HON. THOMAS J. WHELAN
United States District Court
Southern District of California