Munos Contreras v. Colvin

Filing 18

ORDER: (1) Adopting Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 17 ); (2) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14 ); and (3) Granting Commissioner's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 16 ). Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 10/17/2016. (dls) (sjt).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA G. MUNOS CONTRERAS, Case No.: 15-CV-2196-AJB-MDD Plaintiff, 12 13 14 ORDER: v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 16 (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No. 17); Defendant. (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 14); AND 17 18 (3) GRANTING COMMISSIONER’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 16) 19 20 21 22 On October 1, 2015, Plaintiff Maria G. Munos Contreras (“Plaintiff”) filed a 23 complaint seeking judicial review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s 24 (“Commissioner”) decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits. (Doc. No. 25 1.) On April 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 14.) The 26 Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on May 4, 2016. (Doc. No. 16.) 27 On September 13, 2016, Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin issued a Report and 28 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary 1 15-CV-2196-AJB-MDD 1 judgment and grant the Commissioner’s cross motion. (Doc. No. 17 at 2.) Notwithstanding 2 the passage of the deadline, no party has filed an objection to the R&R. (See id. at 17 3 (requiring objections to be filed no later than September 30, 2016).) 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 5 judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 6 district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to 7 which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 8 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); 9 see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617–18 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the 10 absence of timely objections, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error 11 on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 12 advisory committee’s note (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 13 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating § 636 “makes it clear that the district judge must review the 14 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 15 otherwise.” (Emphasis in original)). 16 Neither party timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R. Having 17 reviewed the R&R, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R is thorough, well- 18 reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and 19 Recommendation in full, (Doc. No. 17), DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary 20 judgment, (Doc. No. 14), and GRANTS the Commissioner’s cross motion for summary 21 judgment, (Doc. No. 16). 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: October 17, 2016 25 26 27 28 2 15-CV-2196-AJB-MDD

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?