Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01263/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01263-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0205 Appointment of Surgeon General

---

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

 The Court notes that the caption of the R&R erroneously states that Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment should be granted, when in fact the recommendation is that it be denied. (R&R

1, ECF No. 24)

- 1 - 10cv1263

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE A. MAC EWEN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV1263 JLS (MDD)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; AND (3) DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 12, 18, 24)

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 12),

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 18), and Magistrate Mitchell D. Dembin’s

report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny both Plaintiff’s and

Defendant’s motions, (ECF No. 24).1

 

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.” 

Case 3:10-cv-01263-JLS-MDD Document 25 Filed 11/02/11 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 - 10cv1263

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also 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, neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Dembin’s 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 Dembin’s R&R, (2) DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and (3) DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Administrative Law Judge for further

proceedings consistent with this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 2, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01263-JLS-MDD Document 25 Filed 11/02/11 Page 2 of 2