Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00862/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00862-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

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

- 1 - [07cv862]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CANH MINH PHAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv862 JLS (AJB)

ORDER: ADOPTING JUDGE

BATTAGLIA’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

vs.

MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security, Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

In the present action, the Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia has issued a report and recommendation

(“R&R”) advising this Court to: (1) GRANT Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; (2) DENY

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment; and (3) REMAND this matter to the ALJ for further

proceedings consistent with the recommendation. [Doc. No. 23.] Both parties have failed to file

timely objections to the R&R. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, a district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

“When no timely objection is filed, 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

Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Case 3:07-cv-00862-JLS-AJB Document 24 Filed 06/23/08 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

- 2 - [07cv862]

Having reviewed the R&R in the absence of any timely objection, the Court finds that

Magistrate Judge Battaglia did not commit clear error in his thorough, well-reasoned analysis.

Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R IN FULL. 

The Court hereby: (1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; (2) DENIES

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment; and (3) REMANDS this matter to the ALJ for

further proceedings consistent with the recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 23, 2008

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:07-cv-00862-JLS-AJB Document 24 Filed 06/23/08 Page 2 of 2