Preciado v. Astrue

Filing 34

ORDER (1) ADOPTING 32 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, and (2) granting Defendant's 25 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment: This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/23/12.(lmt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROSIE PRECIADO,

11

CASE NO. 09CV2343 JLS (RBB)
Plaintiff,

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION, AND
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS-MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

vs.
12
13
14

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,

(ECF Nos. 25, 32)

Defendant.

15
16

Presently before the Court are Defendant Michael J. Astrue’s (“Defendant”) cross-motion
17
for summary judgment, (Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 25), and Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks’s
18
report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s motion,
19
(R&R, ECF No. 32).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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 R&R. 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, 673–76 (1980); United
States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely
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)).
-1-

09cv2343

1

Here, Magistrate Judge Brooks directed the parties to file any objections to the R&R on or

2

before December 21, 2011. (R&R 23, ECF No. 32) Plaintiff Rosie Preciado has failed to timely

3

file objections. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and

4

contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Brooks’s R&R

5

and GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. This Order concludes the

6

litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10
11

DATED: January 23, 2012
Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

09cv2343