Baker v. Colvin

Filing 22

ORDER: (1) Adopting Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 21 ]; (2) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 17 ]; and (3) Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 18 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 8/11/2017. (jjg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

INDIA VIOLA BAKER,

Case No.: 16cv1048-CAB-JMA
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc.
No. 21]; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 17]; and (3)
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 18]

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

15
16

Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler, filed on July 7, 2017, recommending that the Court deny
Plaintiff India Baker’s motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant
Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 21.]
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district
court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The
district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report to which
objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also
1
16cv1048-CAB-JMA

1

United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874

2

F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court

3

“need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to

4

accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Cvi.P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing

5

Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v.

6

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[T]he district judge must review the

7

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not

8

otherwise.”).

9

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Adler’s R&R.

10

[See Doc. No. 21 at 25 (objections due by July 24, 2017).] Having reviewed the R&R, the

11

Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly,

12

the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Adler’s report and recommendation;

13

(2) DENIES plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and (3) GRANTS defendant’s

14

cross-motion for summary judgment.

15

This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: August 11, 2017

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
16cv1048-CAB-JMA