Case No. 04-CV-2247 W (AJB).United States District Court, S.D. California.
February 14, 2006
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THOMAS WHELAN, District Judge
On November 9, 2004 Plaintiff Tieng Thi Tran (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action seeking reversal of Defendant’s decision to deny him Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. On January 25, 2006 the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) advising this Court to grant Plaintiff’s motion for reversal and deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Page 2
The parties were permitted to file objections within 10 days of being served with a copy of the order. Since the order was docketed, and served by the clerk’s office, on January 30, 2006, the parties had until February 13, 2006 to file objections. To date, neither party has submitted timely objections nor requested additional time in which to do so.
A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Schmidt v.Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Arizona 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed the District Court had no obligation to review the Magistrate Judge’s Report);see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) “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”) (emphasis in original).
Page 3
Here, Defendant has tendered no objections to the Report nor requested an extension of time in which to do so. The Court therefore accepts Judge Battaglia’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s motion for reversal be granted and ADOPTS the Report in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s motion for reversal (Doc. No. 18-1) and DENIES
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 14-1). The matter is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration only insofar as necessary to determine the appropriate award of disability income benefits. Upon remand, the district court clerk shall close the district court case file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 1