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).

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