Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02046/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02046-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:402 Social Security Benefits

---

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

LAWRENCE ANTHONY PAUL, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12-CV-02046-AJB-BGS 

ORDER:

1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, [Doc. No.

25];

2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 17];

3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, [Doc. No. 18]; AND

4) AFFIRMING THE ALJ’S

DECISION, [Doc. No. 18]. 

Pending before the Court Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 17)

. (Doc. No. 19) and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 18.) The

Court referred the matter to Magistrate Bernard G. Skomal.

On August 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to the Social Security Act,

42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s

denial of disability benefits. (Doc. No. 1). On November 5, 2012 the Commissioner filed an

answer. (Doc. No. 7, 2013). On March 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment requesting reversal of the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) final decision.

1 12cv2046

Case 3:12-cv-02046-AJB-BGS Document 26 Filed 10/28/13 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

(Doc. No. 17.) Magistrate Judge Skomal’s R&R recommends this Court deny Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgement, grant Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment,

and affirm the ALJ’s decision. (Doc. No. 25). The parties were instructed to file written

objections to the R&R no later than October 1, 2013, and replies no later than October 8,

2013. (Id. at 23.) As of the date of this order, neither party has filed an objection to the

R&R. 

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 finding or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United

States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely

objection(s), 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

Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

Here despite being represented by counsel, Plaintiff has failed to file timely objections

to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Skomal’s

R&Risthorough, wellreasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby:

(1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Skomal’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety; (2)

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment; and (4) AFFIRMS the ALJ’s decision. The Clerk of Court is directed

to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 25, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

2 12cv2046

Case 3:12-cv-02046-AJB-BGS Document 26 Filed 10/28/13 Page 2 of 2