Nunez v. Astrue

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ; denying Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Defendant's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 3/9/12.(cge)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

TERESA GUARDADO NUNEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,

15
Defendants.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 10cv2008 AJB (WMc)
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION; (2)
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[Doc. No. 15]

17

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Teresa Guardado Nunez’s Motion for Summary

18

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

19

William McCurine’s Report and Recommendation advising the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion for

20

summary judgment and to grant Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment.

21

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

22

in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge must "make a de

23

novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject,

24

or modify, in whole or in part, the finding or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28

25

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in

26

the absence of timely objection(s), the Court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the

27

face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee

28

Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
1

10cv2008

1

Neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge McCurine’s Report and Recom-

2

mendation. (See R&R, Doc. No. 15, p. 11 (objections due by February 24, 2012).) Having reviewed the

3

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

4

Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge McCurine’s Report and Recommenda-

5

tion; (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) GRANTS Defendant’s

6

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

DATED: March 9, 2012

10
11

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

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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\SSCASES\Nunez\10cv2008.Order.Adopting.R&R.wpd

10cv2008