Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00240/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00240-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE MARIE SAVIDGE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-CV-240 JLS (NLS)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; AND (3) GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 16, 19)

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Leslie Marie Savidge’s (“Plaintiff”)

Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) (ECF No. 16) and Defendant Michael J.

Astrue’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“cross-MSJ”) (ECF No. 19). Also

before the Court is Magistrate Judge Stormes’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

advising that the Court deny Plaintiff’s MSJ and grant Defendant’s cross-MSJ. (ECF

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 R&R. The district court

must “make a de novo determination of those portions 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 - 13cv240

Case 3:13-cv-00240-JLS-NLS Document 22 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

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

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

Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Here, the parties have failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge

Stormes’ R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well

reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS

Magistrate Judge Stormes’ R&R in its entirety, (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s MSJ, and (3)

GRANTS Defendant’s cross-MSJ. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 16, 2014

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv240

Case 3:13-cv-00240-JLS-NLS Document 22 Filed 05/16/14 Page 2 of 2