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)

Download PDF
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?