Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD DIX ROSS, Case No.: 3:25-cv-894-CAB-LR 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of [Doc. No. 15] the Social Security Administration, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On June 26, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez Jr. filed a Report 18 and Recommendation affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to 19 deny Plaintiff Richard Dix Ross’ application for social security disability benefits and 20 supplemental security income benefits. [Doc. No. 15.] The parties had fourteen days to 21 file objections to the Report and Recommendation. [Id. at 35.] No party filed an objection. 22 The district court reviewing a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security may 23 enter a “judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing” the Commissioner’s decision. 42 24 U.S.C. § 405(g). “The district judge must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions 25 of the report . . . to which objection is made,’ and ‘may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 26 or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.’” Campuzano v. 27 Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-CV-721-WQH-WVG, 2021 WL 3848164, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 28 1 || Aug. 27, 2021) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). However, the district judge need not 2 ||review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to which neither party 3 objects. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 4 ‘Neither the Constitution nor the [Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de 5 ||novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). The 6 || Court has reviewed the record, parties’ briefing, and Report and Recommendation. The 7 || Court finds the Report and Recommendation to be correct, well-reasoned, and thorough, 8 thus adopts it in every respect. 9 Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Rodriguez Jr.’s Report and 10 || Recommendation and AFFIRMS the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny 11 || Plaintiff Ross’ application. 12 Itis SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: July 21, 2026 (ib 14 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28