Pena v. Berryhill
Filing
22
ORDER granting 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting re 21 Report and Recommendation. The Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOP TS Magistrate Judge Crawford's R&R, (Doc. No. 21); (2) GRANTS Defendant's summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 14); and (3) DENIES Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 17). The Court Clerk is instructed to close the case. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 1/31/2019. (acc) (sjt).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Marina Pena,
Case No.: 17-cv-1822-AJB-KSC
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
ORDER:
v.
Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
15
16
(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 21);
Defendant.
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 14); and
17
18
(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 17)
19
20
21
Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s request that
22
the Court review the commissioner’s denial of her claim for social security benefits.
23
(Doc. No. 1.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford for a
24
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 18.) The R&R recommends (1) granting
25
defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 14), and (2) denying plaintiff’s
26
motion, (Doc. No. 17). The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R
27
within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the R&R. (Id. at 21.)
28
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district
1
17-cv-1822-AJB-KSC
1
judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make
2
a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]”
3
and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
4
made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing,
5
874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need
6
only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
7
recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment;
8
see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
9
Neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Crawford’s R&R. Having
10
reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error.
11
Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Crawford’s R&R,
12
(Doc. No. 21); (2) GRANTS Defendant’s summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 14); and
13
(3) DENIES Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 17). The Court Clerk is
14
instructed to close the case.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 31, 2019
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17-cv-1822-AJB-KSC
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?