Orozco Michel v. Astrue

Filing 17

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; (2) granting 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) denying 15 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; (4) Remanding for Further Proceedings. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 2/28/11.(lmt)(cc to SSA)

Orozco Michel v. Astrue

Doc. 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 14), Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 15), and Magistrate Judge Porter's report and recommendation advising the Court to grant Plaintiff's motion, deny Defendant's motion, and remand for further proceedings (Doc. No. 16). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district court must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673­76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely (Doc. Nos. 14­16) vs. ALICIA OROZCO MICHEL, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 09-CV-2214 JLS (POR) ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (4) REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

-1-

09cv2214

Dockets.Justia.com

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

objection, the Court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Porter's report and recommendation. (See R&R 20 (objections due by February 25, 2011).) Having reviewed the report and recommendation, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Porter's report and recommendation, (2) GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (3) DENIES Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, and (4) REMANDS this matter for further proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 28, 2011 Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

-2-

09cv2214