Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01451/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01451-1/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 - 10CV1451

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMAN ELLIS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV1451 JLS (BLM)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; (3) DENYING

DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 10, 12, & 14.)

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 10),

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 12), and Magistrate Judge Major’s

report and recommendation recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s

motion and deny Defendant’s cross-motion. (Doc. No. 14.) 

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

Case 3:10-cv-01451-JLS-BLM Document 15 Filed 06/22/11 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 - 10CV1451

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, no party has filed a timely objection to Judge Major’s report and recommendation. 

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 Major’s report and recommendation, (2) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

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

judgment. This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 22, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01451-JLS-BLM Document 15 Filed 06/22/11 Page 2 of 2