Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01956/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01956-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:427 Social Security Benenfits

---

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 - 09CV1956

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD L. WILLIS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09CV1956-LAB (POR)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT &

vs. RECOMMENDATION

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

On September 8, 2009, Donald L. Willis filed a complaint asking the Court to reverse

the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his

claim for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. The case was

referred to Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Civil Local Rule 72.1(c). 

Now before the Court is Judge Porter’s R&R on the parties’ cross-motions for

summary judgment. Judge Porter recommended that the Court DENY Willis’s motion and

GRANT the Commissioner’s. The R&R ordered the parties to file any objections by

November 1, 2010. It also advised them that failure to file timely objections may waive the

right to raise those objections on appeal. Neither party filed objections, nor asked for

additional time to do so.

In considering an R&R, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the

recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate

Case 3:09-cv-01956-LAB-POR Document 29 Filed 12/10/10 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 - 09CV1956

judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he court

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he

district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir.2003) (en banc).

The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds it to both thorough and correct, especially

considering Willis’s failure to object to it. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. Willis’s

motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Commissioner’s is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 9, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01956-LAB-POR Document 29 Filed 12/10/10 Page 2 of 2