Alvarez v. Berryhill

Filing 32

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 31 ); (2) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 26 ); and (3) Granting Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 27 ). Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 9/23/2019.(jrm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEITH ALVAREZ,

Case No.: 3:17-cv-2236-AJB-NLS
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER:

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,

15
16

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc.
No. 31);

Defendant.

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 26); AND

17
18

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 27.)

19
20
21
22

Presently before the Court are (1) Plaintiff Keith Alvarez’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for

23

summary judgment; and (2) Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill’s (“Defendant”) cross motion

24

for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 26–27.) The Court referred this matter to Magistrate

25

Judge Nita L. Stormes for a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued

26

on August 6, 2019. (Doc. No. 31.) The R&R recommends that the Court: (1) deny

27

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and (2) grant Defendant’s cross motion for

28

summary judgment. (Id. at 20–21.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to
1
3:17-cv-2236-AJB-NLS

1

the R&R by August 21, 2019, and a reply to the objections no later than August 30, 2019.

2

(Id. at 21.)

3

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

4

judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make

5

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

6

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

7

made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the

13

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

14

hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R; (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment;

15

and (3) GRANTS Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: September 23, 2019

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3:17-cv-2236-AJB-NLS