Williams v. Berryhill

Filing 25

ORDER 24 Adopting Report and Recommendation; Granting 21 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 4/5/18. (dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Louis Williams,

Case No.: 17-cv-0226-AJB-JMA
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 24);

v.
Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,

15
16

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 21); and

Defendant.

17
(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 15).

18
19
20
21

Presently before the Court is plaintiff’s social security appeal. (Doc. No. 1.) The

22

Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for a Report and

23

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 24.) The R&R recommends: (1) granting

24

defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment; and (2) denying plaintiff’s motion.

25

(Id. at 22.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by February

26

16, 2018, and any reply to objections filed by February 23, 2018. (Id.)

27

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district

28

judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make
1
17-cv-0226-AJB-JMA

1

a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]”

2

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

3

made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing,

4

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

5

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

6

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment;

7

see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

8

Neither party filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court

9

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

10

hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Adler’s R&R, (Doc. No. 24); (2) GRANTS

11

defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 21); and (3) DENIES

12

plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. (Doc. No. 15).

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 5, 2018

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17-cv-0226-AJB-JMA