Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01964/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01964-1/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 - 10cv1964

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANNA MARIE S SIBALA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-1964 JLS (CAB)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; (3) GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 14, 16, 19)

vs.

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Anna Marie Sibala’s motion for summary judgment

(ECF No. 14), Defendant Michael Astrue’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16), and

Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo’s report and recommendation advising the Court to deny

Plaintiff’s motion and grant Defendant’s motion (R&R, ECF No. 19).

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

objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in

Case 3:10-cv-01964-JLS-CAB Document 20 Filed 07/11/11 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 - 10cv1964

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)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Bencivengo’s report and

recommendation. (See R&R 24–25 (objections due by July 5, 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 Bencivengo’s report and

recommendation, (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and (3) 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: July 11, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01964-JLS-CAB Document 20 Filed 07/11/11 Page 2 of 2