Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02023/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02023-2/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

TRINIDAD RUIZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-2023 MMA (BGS)

ORDER:

ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION;

[Doc. No. 23]

GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT;

[Doc. No. 18]

DENYING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

[Doc. No. 19]

REMANDING THE ACTION TO

THE SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge

Bernard G. Skomal, filed on July 20, 2012, recommending that the Court deny in part and grant in part

- 1 - 10CV2023

Case 3:10-cv-02023-MMA-BGS Document 24 Filed 08/31/12 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

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. 

[Doc. No. 23]. Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. 

The duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate Judge’s R&R are set forth in

Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties

object to a R&R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions

of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,

149–50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the R&R de novo. 

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may nevertheless “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); Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006); Or. Natural Desert Ass’n

v. Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 2006). 

After reviewing the R&R in its entirety, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s

conclusions are thorough, well-reasoned, and supported by the record. In light of the foregoing, and

the fact that neither party objected to the R&R, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 23] is ADOPTED in

its entirety; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 18] is GRANTED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART;

3. Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 19] is DENIED; and

4. The action is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further

proceedings consistent with this decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 31, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 2 - 10CV2023

Case 3:10-cv-02023-MMA-BGS Document 24 Filed 08/31/12 Page 2 of 2