Ruiz v. Astrue
Filing
24
ORDER: Granting in Part and Denying in Part 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying 19 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; Adopting in its Entirety 23 Report and Recommendation; and Remanding the Action to the Social Security Administration for Further Proceedings. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 8/31/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TRINIDAD RUIZ,
CASE NO. 10-CV-2023 MMA (BGS)
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER:
ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION;
13
14
[Doc. No. 23]
15
17
GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT;
18
[Doc. No. 18]
19
DENYING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS-MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND
16
vs.
20
21
22
23
[Doc. No. 19]
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
REMANDING THE ACTION TO
THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Defendant.
24
25
26
27
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge
28
Bernard G. Skomal, filed on July 20, 2012, recommending that the Court deny in part and grant in part
-1-
10CV2023
1
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
2
[Doc. No. 23]. Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R.
3
The duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate Judge’s R&R are set forth in
4
Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties
5
object to a R&R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions
6
of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
7
149–50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the R&R de novo.
8
Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
9
1114, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may nevertheless “accept, reject, or modify,
10
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. §
11
636(b)(1); Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006); Or. Natural Desert Ass’n
12
v. Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 2006).
13
After reviewing the R&R in its entirety, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s
14
conclusions are thorough, well-reasoned, and supported by the record. In light of the foregoing, and
15
the fact that neither party objected to the R&R, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.
16
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
17
1.
18
19
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 23] is ADOPTED in
its entirety;
2.
20
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 18] is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART;
21
3.
Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 19] is DENIED; and
22
4.
The action is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further
23
24
25
proceedings consistent with this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 31, 2012
26
27
28
Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge
-2-
10CV2023
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?