“The statute makes it clear that the 14 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 15 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”
How later courts described this case
- “The statute makes it clear that the 14 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 15 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
Case No. 2:24-cv-05590-FWS-JC
11
12 TIANA DANNELLA SARA B.,1 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
13 CONCLUSIONS AND
Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
14 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [24]
15 v. AND OVERRULING OBJECTIONS
[25]
16
FRANK BISIGNANO,2
17 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINSTRATION,
18
19
Defendant.
20
21
22
23 1 Plaintiff’s name is partially redacted to protect Plaintiff’s privacy in compliance with
24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the
Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference
25 of the United States.
26 2 On June 23, 2025, the court substituted Frank Bisignano as Defendant in this case.
(See Dkt. 22 (“Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
27
Commissioner Frank Bisignano is hereby substituted as the Defendant in this
28 action.”).)
1 I. Introduction and Relevant Procedural History
2 Before the court is the Magistrate Judge’s June 23, 2025, Report and
3 Recommendation. (Dkt. 24 (“Report and Recommendation” or “R&R”).) Based on
4 the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court ADOPTS the Report
5 and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge, including each of the findings
6 of fact and conclusions of law therein.
7 In summary, on July 1, 2024, Plaintiff Tiana Dannella Sara B. (“Plaintiff”) filed
8 a Complaint against Defendant Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security
9 Administration (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”),3 (Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”)), seeking
10 Review of Denial of Social Security Disability. On September 3, 2024, Defendant
11 filed an Answer to the Complaint. (Dkt. 9.) On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed their
12 Opening Brief. (Dkt. 12 (“Opening Brief”).) In the Opening Brief, in summary,
13 Plaintiff argued that “it cannot be said that the ALJ’s determination is supported by
14 substantial evidence,” and “[t]his error warrants remand.” (Id. at 22-23.) On
15 December 20, 2024, Defendant filed their Brief in Opposition to the Opening Brief.
16 (Dkt. 17 (“Opposition Brief”)). In the Opposition Brief, Defendant stated that “[t]his
17 Court should affirm the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision to deny [Plaintiff’s]
18 application for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income
19 (SSI) and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Titles II and XVI, respectively, of
20 the Social Security Act.” (Id. at 7.) On January 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Reply in
21 support of the Opening Brief. (Dkt. 18 (“Reply”).) On June 23, 2025, the Magistrate
22 Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 24) On July 3, 2025, Plaintiff
23 objected to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 25 (“Objections”).)
24 ///
25 ///
26
27
3 As previously indicated in footnote 1, Defendant Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of
28 Social Security Administration is the current named defendant in this action.
1 II. Discussion
2 “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
3 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.
4 § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (stating “[t]he district judge must
5 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
6 properly objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
7 recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
8 magistrate judge with instructions”). Proper objections require “specific written
9 objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge.
10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of
11 those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
12 which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna-
13 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the
14 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de
15 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Where no objection has been made,
16 arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)
17 (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file
18 written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by
19 rules of court.”). Moreover, “[o]bjections to a R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the
20 same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.” Chith v.
21 Haynes, 2021 WL 4744596, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021).
22 In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
23 the court issue an order:
24
(1) accept[ing] th[e] Report and Recommendation; (2) accept[ing] th[e]
25 Report and Recommendation; (3) affirm[ing] the Commissioner’s
decision; and (4) dismiss[ing] this action with prejudice; and
26
(5) direct[ing] that Judgment be entered accordingly.
27
28 (R&R at 25.)
1 In the Objections, Plaintiff made several arguments and requests, including, in
2 summary, that “[c]ontrary to the Magistrate Judge’s finding, the ALJ’s error i[s] not
3 harmless in this case,” “the Commissioner’s decision [should] be vacated, and this
4 matter [should] be remanded for further administrative proceedings.” (See Objections
5 at 2-5.) After conducting a de novo review of the Objections, the court agrees with
6 each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and
7 Recommendation, including each of the recommendations contained therein.
8 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s arguments set forth in the Objections are OVERRULED on
9 the merits.
10 In sum, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed the record,
11 including the Report and Recommendation, the Complaint, the Answer, the Opening
12 Brief, the Opposition Brief, the Reply, the Objections, and the other records of the
13 case. After conducting a de novo review of the Objections, the court concurs with and
14 accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the Report and
15 Recommendation.
16 ///
17 ///
18 ///
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 II. Conclusion
2 Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court
3 | adopts the Report and Recommendation and accepts each of the findings of fact and
4 | conclusions of law therein. Accordingly, the court ORDERS the following:
5
6 (1) The court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation.
7 (2) The court DENIES Plaintiff's request for remand.
8 (3) The court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision.
9 (4) The court DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE.
10 (5) The court DIRECTS that Judgment be entered accordingly.
1]
12
13 Lo LS /——
14 | Dated: July 28, 2025
Hon. Fred W. Slaughter
15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28