Stenson v. Astrue

Filing 21

ORDER: (1) Adopting 20 Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant's 18 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 4/5/2012. (knb)

1
2

12 APR - 5 AH 10: I'

3

.~

f~!Cr

COURT

Uf C:,LifORtlU',

4
DEPUTY

5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GINGER STENSON,

CASE NO. l1-CV-I054 BEN (BLM)

12
13

Plaintiff,

ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

vs.

14
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JlTDGMENT

15
16
17

MICHAEL 1. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

[Docket Nos. 17, 18, 20]

18
19

On October 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 17), and on

20

November 30, 2011, Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 18).

21

Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation

22

recommending that Plaintiff s motion for summary judgment be denied and Defendant's cross-motion

23

for summary judgment be granted.

24

Recommendation were due March 30, 2012. (ld) Neither party filed any objections. For the reasons

25

that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

(Docket No. 20.)

Any objections to the Report and

26

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate

27

judge on a dispositive matter. FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he district

28

judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly

- 1-

llcvlO54

1 objected to." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge
2

must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but

3

not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

4

(emphasis in original); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither

5 the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and
6

recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

7

In the absence of any objections, the Court fully ADOPTS Judge Major's Report and

8

Recommendation. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's

9

motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

uf

11 DATED: April
12

,2012

13

14
15
16
17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-

llcvl054