Filed: Feb. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2016
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Docket Nos. 10, 15, 19] ROGER T. BENITEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff Caren M. Fuentes filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. (Docket No. 1.) A briefing schedule was issued. (Docket No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 10.) Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and an Oppo
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Docket Nos. 10, 15, 19] ROGER T. BENITEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff Caren M. Fuentes filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. (Docket No. 1.) A briefing schedule was issued. (Docket No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 10.) Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and an Oppos..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
[Docket Nos. 10, 15, 19]
ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff Caren M. Fuentes filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. (Docket No. 1.) A briefing schedule was issued. (Docket No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 10.) Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion. (Docket Nos. 15-16.)
On February 8, 2016, Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation recommending this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and grant Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 19.) Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due February 22, 2016. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, "[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); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.
The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
