Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02811/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02811-1/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 - 06cv2811

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYLVIA Z. DOTON-STRACHAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV2811 JLS (BLM)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION, (2)

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, (3) DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and (4)

AFFIRMING DEFENDANT’S

DECISION

(Doc. Nos. 16 & 17)

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

On December 29, 2006, Sylvia Z. Doton-Strachan (“plaintiff”) filed this action to review

the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“defendant”) denying plaintiff’s application

for Social Security Disability. Specifically, defendant affirmed the ruling of Administrative Law

Judge James S. Carletti that plaintiff was not “disabled” within the meaning of the Social Security

Act and was not entitled to disability insurance or benefits.

On February 28, 2008, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued a report and

recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and FRCP 72(b). (Doc. No. 22.) 

Magistrate Judge Major recommended that this Court deny plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment and grant defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (Id.) Plaintiff was ordered

to file any written objections by March 14, 2008, but no objections were filed. 

Case 3:06-cv-02811-JLS-BLM Document 23 Filed 04/03/08 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 - 06cv2811

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, a district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is

made.” “When no timely objection is filed, 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,

Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th

Cir. 1974)). 

Having reviewed the report and recommendation in the absence of any timely objection,

the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Major did not commit clear error in her thorough, wellreasoned analysis. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL the report and recommendation. The

Court GRANTS defendant’s motion for summary judgment and DENIES plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 20 C.F.R. § 405.510, the Court ORDERS

the Clerk to enter judgment affirming defendant’s decision. This Order CONCLUDES the

litigation in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 3, 2008

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02811-JLS-BLM Document 23 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 2