Monaghan v. O'Malley

1
24-CV-1777 W (JLB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL M.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
Case No.: 24-CV-1777 W (JLB)
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
[DOC. 24]; (2) GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY-
JUDGMENT MOTION [DOC. 14];
(3) REVERSING THE
COMMISSIONER’S DECISION;
AND (4) REMANDING CASE FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
On October 4, 2024, Plaintiff Michael M. filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review
of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for
supplemental security income benefits. (See Compl. [Doc. 1].) The matter was referred to
the Honorable Jill L. Burkhardt, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and
recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment. (Pl’s MSJ
[Doc. 24].) The motion having been fully briefed, on February 11, 2026, Magistrate
Case 3:24-cv-01777-W-JLB Document 25 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
24-CV-1777 W (JLB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Judge Burkhardt issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the
Court (1) grant Plaintiff’s motion reversing the Commissioner’s decision, and (2) remand
the case for further proceedings consistent with the Report’s findings. (Report [Doc. 24]
20:15–18.) The Report also ordered any objections filed within 14 days of service of the
Report and any reply filed within 14 days of service of the objections. (Id. 20:19–23.)
To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional
time in which to file an objection.
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. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)
(holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the district judge must review
the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not
otherwise”) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D.
Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no
obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). This rule of law is well-established
within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000
n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an
objection is made to the R & R.”) (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at
1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.)
(adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the
opportunity to do so, and holding that, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157
(S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).
The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Burkhardt’s recommendation, and ADOPTS
the Report [Doc. 24] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is
incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s summary-judgment
Case 3:24-cv-01777-W-JLB Document 25 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
24-CV-1777 W (JLB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
motion [Doc. 14] and ORDERS as follows: (1) the Commissioner’s decision is
REVERSED; (2) the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the
Report; and (3) JUDGEMENT shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff Michael M. and
against Defendant Commissioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-01777-W-JLB Document 25 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3