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)

Download PDF
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?