Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01975/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01975-1/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 - 08cv1975

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN R. FLOYD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv1975-LAB (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; AND

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action seeking review of a final decision denying

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of

the Social Security Act.

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge William Gallo for report and

recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The parties filed cross-motions for summary

judgment and on April 19, 2010, Judge Gallo issued his report and recommendation (the

"R&R") finding Plaintiff was disabled, and therefore recommending granting Plaintiff’s motion

and denying Defendant’s motion. The R&R ordered the parties to file any objections no later

than May 19, 2010.

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 21 Filed 05/28/10 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 - 08cv1975

A district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision 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)(e); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

recommendation] to which objection is made." Id. Section 636(b)(1) does not require some

lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed. 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).

Because no objections to the R&R were filed, the Court ADOPTS its factual findings.

The Court has also reviewed the legal analysis and conclusions based on those findings,

and finds them to be correct. The Court therefore ADOPTS the R&R, GRANTS Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment, and DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Within seven calendar days from the date this order is issued, Plaintiff is directed to

submit a proposed order in editable format awarding him benefits as requested.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 27, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01975-LAB-WVG Document 21 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 2