Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01323/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01323-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VAL J. WALDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. AS TRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12cv1323 AJB (NLS)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No.

19);

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 91); AND

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 18).

On June 1, 2012, Plaintiff Val. J. Waldon filed this appeal pursuant to Section

205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of an

adverse final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. No. 1.) On

December 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 16), and

on January 25, 2013, Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No.

18). On April 26, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a Report

and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment and deny Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. (Doc.

No. 19.) The R&R also ordered that any objection must be filed no later than May 13,

2013. (Id. at 18.) To date, neither party has filed an objection or made a request for

additional time to do so. Both summary judgment motions and the R&R are presently

before the Court.

1 12cv1323 AJB (NLS)

Case 3:12-cv-01323-AJB-NLS Document 20 Filed 05/20/13 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

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, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435

(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).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. (Doc. No. 19.) For the

reasons stated in the R&R, which are incorporated herein by reference, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 16), DENIES Defendant’s

cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 18), and REMANDS the case to the

Social Security Administration for proceedings consistent with the R&R. Upon remand,

the Clerk of Court will close the district court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

2 12cv1323 AJB (NLS)

Case 3:12-cv-01323-AJB-NLS Document 20 Filed 05/20/13 Page 2 of 2