Sibala v. Astrue

Filing 20

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) denying Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Defendant's 16 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 7/11/11.(lmt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANNA MARIE S SIBALA,
Plaintiff,

12
13

CASE NO. 10-CV-1964 JLS (CAB)
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION;
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; (3) GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

vs.

14
15
16

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,
Defendant.

(ECF Nos. 14, 16, 19)

17
18

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Anna Marie Sibala’s motion for summary judgment

19

(ECF No. 14), Defendant Michael Astrue’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16), and

20

Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo’s report and recommendation advising the Court to deny

21

Plaintiff’s motion and grant Defendant’s motion (R&R, ECF No. 19).

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

26

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980);

27

United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely

28

objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in

-1-

10cv1964

1

order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell

2

v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

3

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and

4

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

5

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Bencivengo’s report and

6

recommendation. (See R&R 24–25 (objections due by July 5, 2011).) Having reviewed the report

7

and recommendation, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error.

8

Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Bencivengo’s report and

9

recommendation, (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and (3) GRANTS

10

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. This Order concludes the litigation in this matter.

11

The Clerk shall close the file.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

DATED: July 11, 2011
Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

10cv1964