Rockett v. Social Security Administration

Filing 38

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 37 Report and Recommendation; (2) denying Plaintiff's 23 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Mary A. Rockett; and(3) granting defendant's 25 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Social Security Administration. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 09/16/11.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARY A. ROCKETT,

Case No.

12
13

Plaintiff,
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION; (2)
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

v.

14
15

3:10-cv-00163-AJB-WVG

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Respondent.

16
17
18
19

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Mary A. Rockett’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

20

Defendant Michael J. Astrue’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and Magistrate Judge William

21

V. Gallo’s Report and Recommendation advising the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion and grant

22

Defendant’s motion.

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge’s

24

duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district judge must

25

“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made,” and

26

“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the finding or recommendations made by the

27

magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th

28

Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\10cv163 Order Adopting R&R.wpd, 91911

-1-

1

is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

72(b), Advisory Committee Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

3

1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

4

Neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Gallo’s Report and

5

Recommendation. (See R & R 31-32 (objections due by September 6, 2011).) Having reviewed the

6

report and recommendation, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Gallo’s Report and

7

Recommendation is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court

8

hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gallo’s report and recommendation; (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s

9

Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) GRANTS Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary

10

Judgment.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

DATED: September 16, 2011

15
Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
U.S. District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\10cv163 Order Adopting R&R.wpd, 91911

-2-