Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02343/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02343-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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 - 09cv2343

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSIE PRECIADO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09CV2343 JLS (RBB)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION, AND

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 25, 32)

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court are Defendant Michael J. Astrue’s (“Defendant”) cross-motion

for summary judgment, (Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 25), and Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks’s

report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s motion,

(R&R, ECF No. 32).

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 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)).

Case 3:09-cv-02343-JLS-RBB Document 34 Filed 01/23/12 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

- 2 - 09cv2343

Here, Magistrate Judge Brooks directed the parties to file any objections to the R&R on or

before December 21, 2011. (R&R 23, ECF No. 32) Plaintiff Rosie Preciado has failed to timely

file objections. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and

contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Brooks’s R&R

and GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. This Order concludes the

litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 23, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02343-JLS-RBB Document 34 Filed 01/23/12 Page 2 of 2