Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02214/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02214-1/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

- 1 - 09cv2214

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALICIA OROZCO MICHEL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-CV-2214 JLS (POR)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; (3) DENYING

DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

(4) REMANDING FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

(Doc. Nos. 14–16)

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 14),

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 15), and Magistrate Judge Porter’s report

and recommendation advising the Court to grant Plaintiff’s motion, deny Defendant’s motion, and

remand for further proceedings (Doc. No. 16).

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 report and recommendation. 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 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

Case 3:09-cv-02214-JLS-POR Document 17 Filed 02/28/11 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 - 09cv2214

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 timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Porter’s report and

recommendation. (See R&R 20 (objections due by February 25, 2011).) Having reviewed the report

and recommendation, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error.

Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Porter’s report and recommendation,

(2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (3) DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for

summary judgment, and (4) REMANDS this matter for further proceedings consistent with the report

and recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 28, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02214-JLS-POR Document 17 Filed 02/28/11 Page 2 of 2