Luis v. Astrue

Filing 18

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 15 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 17 Report and Recommendation and Remanding Case for Further Proceedings. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/30/2012. (jao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARMANDO LUIS, II,

CASE NO. 10CV2393 JLS (JMA)
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION;
(2) GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; (3) GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
AND (4) REMANDING CASE FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

13
vs.
14
15
16
17

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Defendant.

(ECF Nos. 14, 15, 17)

18
19
20

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Armando Luis, II’s (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant

21

Michael J. Astrue’s (“Defendant”) cross-motions for summary judgment. (Pl.’s MSJ, ECF No.

22

14); (Def.’s MSJ, ECF No. 15) Also before the Court are Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler’s report

23

and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part

24

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion for

25

summary judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings. (R&R, ECF No. 17)

26

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

27

duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court must “make a de novo

28

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

-1-

10cv2393

1

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

7

Here, Magistrate Judge Adler directed the parties to file any objections to the R&R on or

8

before August 15, 2012. (R&R 17, ECF No. 17) Neither party has filed timely objections to the

9

R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains

10

no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Adler’s R&R and

11

Orders as follows:

12

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

13

IN PART, as set forth in the R&R;

14

(2) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

15

IN PART, as set forth in the R&R; and

16

(3) This case is REMANDED for further proceedings, as set forth in the R&R.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

DATED: August 30, 2012
Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

10cv2393