Miller v. Astrue

Filing 25

ORDER: (1) Adopting 24 Report and Recommendation, (2) Denying Plaintiff's 21 Motion for Summary Judgment, (3) Granting Defendant's 23 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 6/25/2014. (knb)

I

'.

.. v

.~.

o.

2

3
4
5

6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

STEVE JASON MILLER,

11

CASE NO. 13-CV-238-BEN (NLS)

ORDER:

Plaintiff,

12
13

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

vs.

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

14
15
16

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
fC8~~r~TTION FOR SUMMARY

MICHAEL J. AS TRUE
Commissioner of Sociaf Security,

17
18

,Defendant.

[Docket Nos. 21, 23, 24]

19
20

On January 29,2013, PlaintiffSteve Jason Miller commenced an action seeking

21 judicial review ofa decision ofthe Commissioner ofSocial Security denying Plaintiff's
22 application for Disabled Adult Child benefits. (Docket No.1). Plaintiff filed a Motion
23

for Summary Judgment on January 27, 2014. (Docket No. 21). Defendant filed a

24

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on February 27, 2014. (Docket No. 23). On

25

June 9, 2014, Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a thoughtful and thorough

26 Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
27 Judgment be denied and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment be granted.
28 (Docket No. 24). Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due June

-1

13cv238

~ .... - . - . : ' : -

."

~,~.

1 23, 2014. (Jd.) Neither party has filed any objections. For the relsonstpat,follow, the
0­

2 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
3

." -:.­
-

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recoIIlIJlendeddisposition" of

4 a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. FED. R. CIV. P.- 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.
5 § 636(b)(I). "The district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and
6 recommendation] that has been properly objected to." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3}.­

.­

7 However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate
8 judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not
9 otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en
10 bane) (emphasis in original); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th
11

Cir. 2005). ''Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review,

12 de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct."

13 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.
14

In the absence of any objections, the Court fully ADOPTS Judge

Sto~e,s'

15 Report and Recommendation. Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is
16 GRANTED, and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19 DATED:

r

Jun~14

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2-

13cv238