Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02233/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02233-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
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 - 08cv2233

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv2233-L(NLS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Mark Alexander filed a Complaint for Judicial Review and Remedy on

Administrative Decision Under the Social Security Act.. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(c)(1)(c), the case was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes for a report and recommendation. On October 23, 2009

Judge Stormes issued a report and recommendation recommending to dismiss the

complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has not filed objections. For

the reasons which follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the

complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

On April 3, 2009 the court issued a briefing schedule for Plaintiff to file a motion for

summary judgment; however, Plaintiff did not file a motion. On June 24, 2009 the court

issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to

prosecute. Upon a showing of good cause, Judge Stormes on July 14, 2009 issued a new

briefing schedule, extending until September 14, 2009 the time for Plaintiff to file a

Case 3:08-cv-02233-L-NLS Document 18 Filed 11/18/09 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 - 08cv2233

summary judgment motion. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not filed a motion. Accordingly,

the report and recommendation recommends dismissing the complaint without prejudice for

failure to prosecute. 

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” on a

dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the

parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The court shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to

which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the de

novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not require review by the district court

under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The “statute makes

it clear that the 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) (emphasis in the original); see

Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003).

In the absence of objections, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The

complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 17, 2009

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO:

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-02233-L-NLS Document 18 Filed 11/18/09 Page 2 of 2