Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00353/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00353-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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

KATHLEEN A. KNOWLES,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-353 MMA (WVG)

ORDER:

ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION;

[Doc. No. 23]

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

[Doc. No. 16]

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Doc. No. 19]

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge

William V. Gallo, filed on December 2, 2011, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. [Doc.

No. 23]. Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. 

The duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate Judge’s R&R are set forth

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

parties object to a R&R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of

- 1 - 11-cv-353 -MMA (WVG)

Case 3:11-cv-00353-MMA-WVG Document 24 Filed 04/17/12 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

those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not

review the R&R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may

nevertheless “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); Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088

(S.D. Cal. 2006); Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1205 (D. Or.

2006). 

After reviewing the R&R in its entirety, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s

conclusions are thorough, well-reasoned, and supported by the record. In light of the foregoing,

and the fact that neither party objected to the R&R, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R in its

entirety. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 23] is ADOPTED

in its entirety; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 16] is DENIED; and

a. Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 19] is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 17, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 2 - 11-cv-353 -MMA (WVG)

Case 3:11-cv-00353-MMA-WVG Document 24 Filed 04/17/12 Page 2 of 2