Cooper v. Astrue
Filing
19
ORDER: 1) Adopting 18 Report and Recommendation; 2) granting Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; 3) denying Defendant's 15 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; 4) Remanding for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 1/7/14. (certified order sent to SSA). (cge)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
CAROL A. COOPER,
v.
Plaintiff,
13
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
14 Commissioner of Social Security,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
20
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Case No. 12cv2673 AJB (DHB)
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No.
18);
(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 11);
(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 15); AND
(4) REMANDING FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.
21
On November 2, 2012, Plaintiff Carol A. Cooper (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint
22
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), requesting judicial review of an adverse final decision
23
issued by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”). (Doc. No. 1.) On April 2,
24
2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 11), and on May 14,
25
2013, Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. Nos. 15, 16).
26
Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment or
27
a reply to Defendant’s opposition.
28
1
12cv2673 AJB (DHB)
1
On December 5, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick issued a
2
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s
3
motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment,
4
and remand for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 18 at 29:2-5.) The R&R
5
also instructed the parties that any written objections to the R&R must be filed no later
6
than January 6, 2013, and that failure to file timely objections could waive any right to
7
raise those contentions on appeal. (Id. at 29:9-16.) See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153
8
(9th Cir. 1991). As of the date of this order, neither party has filed an objection to the
9
R&R or requested additional time to file objections.
10
A district judge’s duties concerning a report and recommendation and objections
11
thereto are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U .S.C. § 636(b)(1).
12
Pursuant to Section 636(b)(1)(C), a district judge must “make a de novo determination of
13
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
14
objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
15
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” See also United States v. Remsing, 874
16
F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, under Rule 72(b), in the absence of timely
17
objection(s), the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of
18
the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory
19
Committee Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
20
(9th Cir. 2003).
21
Here, despite being represented by counsel, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed
22
timely objections to the R&R. Therefore, having reviewed the R&R the Court finds the
23
report thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
24
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its
25
entirety, (Doc. No. 18), GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No.
26
11), DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 15), and
27
REMANDS the case to the Social Security Administration for further administrative
28
2
12cv2673 AJB (DHB)
1
proceedings consistent with the R&R, (Doc. No. 18 at 28:7-21). The Clerk of Court is
2
instructed to remand and close the case.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
DATED: January 7, 2014
7
8
Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
U.S. District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
12cv2673 AJB (DHB)
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?