Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01886/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01886-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

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 - 09cv1886

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAZDAR R. ALZAYADIE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-CV-1886 JLS (BLM)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ADLER’S

R&R, (2) GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (3)

DENYING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (4)

GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

STRIKE, AND (5) REMANDING

FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 

(Doc. Nos. 16, 19, 23, & 25)

vs.

MICHAEL ASTRUE,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Nazdar R. Alzayadie’s motion for summary judgment,

(Doc. No. 16) Defendant Michael Astrue’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 19) Defendant

Michael Astrue’s motion to strike, (Doc. No. 23) and Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler’s Report and

Recommendation (R&R). (Doc. No. 25.) 

Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the

duties of a district court 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

Case 3:09-cv-01886-JLS-JMA Document 26 Filed 08/11/10 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 - 09cv1886

made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614,

617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court,

501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Neither party has timely objected to Magistrate Judge Adler’s R&R. Thus, the Court has

reviewed the R&R for clear error and found none. Consequently, the R&R is ADOPTED.

Pursuant to Judge Adler’s recommendation, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED IN PART, Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and

Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. This case is hereby

REMANDED for further proceedings. On remand, the ALJ SHALL PROCEED in conformance

with Judge Adler’s directions in the R&R.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 11, 2010

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01886-JLS-JMA Document 26 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2