Davis v. Astrue

Filing 20

ORDER: Adopting 19 Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Granting Defendant's 15 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 8/22/2011. (knb)

.--

FILED
AUG 23 2011

1

CLERk US
SOUTHERN DisTZ:g~R/'cT COURT
BY
OF ALIFORNIA
DEPUTY

2

3

4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDY DAVIS,

CASE NO.1 0-cv-01732 BEN (NLS)

ORDER:

Plaintiff,

12

13
14

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

vs.

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

15

16
17

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration,

18

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
CROSS-MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant.
[Docket Nos. 13, 15, 19]

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
27
28

Plaintiff Randy Davis brings this action under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
seeking judicial review ofthe Social Security Administration Commissioner's final decision denying
his claim for supplemental security income benefits. (Docket No.1.) On January 28,2011, Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking reversal of the decision of the Commissioner and/or
remand to the Commissioner for a new hearing and decision. (Docket No. 13.) On April 27, 2011,
the Commissioner filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking to affirm the ALl's decision.
(Docket No. 15.)
Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and
Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs Motion be denied and Defendant's Cross-Motion be
granted. (Docket No. 19.) Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due August 19,

- 1-

IOcvOl732

1 2011.
2
3

(Jd.) Neither party filed any objections.

For the reasons that follow, the Report and

Recommendation is ADOPTED.
A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate

4 judge on a dispositive matter. FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). "[T]he district
5 judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly
6

objected to." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge

7

must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but

8

not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane)

9

(emphasis in original), cert denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 FJd 992,

10

1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review,

11

de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia,

12

328 F3d at 1121. Accordingly, the Court may deny Plaintiff s Motion and grant the Commissioner's

13

Cross-Motion on this basis alone.

14

In the absence of any objections, the Court fully ADOPTS Judge Stormes' Report and

15

Recommendation. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and the Commissioner's

16

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

DATED: August~011

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 2-

IOcv01732