Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02196/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02196-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

15-CV-2196-AJB-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA G. MUNOS CONTRERAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-CV-2196-AJB-MDD

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No. 17);

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 14); AND

(3) GRANTING COMMISSIONER’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 16)

On October 1, 2015, Plaintiff Maria G. Munos Contreras (“Plaintiff”) filed a 

complaint seeking judicial review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s

(“Commissioner”) decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits. (Doc. No. 

1.) On April 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 14.) The 

Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on May 4, 2016. (Doc. No. 16.) 

On September 13, 2016, Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

Case 3:15-cv-02196-AJB-MDD Document 18 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 2
2

15-CV-2196-AJB-MDD

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

judgment and grant the Commissioner’s cross motion. (Doc. No. 17 at 2.) Notwithstanding 

the passage of the deadline, no party has filed an objection to the R&R. (See id. at 17 

(requiring objections to be filed no later than September 30, 2016).)

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

judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 

district judge 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)(C); 

see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617–18 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the 

absence of timely objections, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error 

on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)

advisory committee’s note (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating § 636 “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.” (Emphasis in original)).

Neither party timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R. Having 

reviewed the R&R, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R is thorough, wellreasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and 

Recommendation in full, (Doc. No. 17), DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment, (Doc. No. 14), and GRANTS the Commissioner’s cross motion for summary 

judgment, (Doc. No. 16).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02196-AJB-MDD Document 18 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 2