Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01168/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01168-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
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

- 1 - 10cv1168

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ROBERT POMERANCE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-1168 JLS (BLM)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; (2)

DISMISSING CASE FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Doc. No. 13)

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

On November 29, 2010, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued a report and

recommendation advising the Court to dismiss this action for failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 13

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

duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court 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); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980);

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

objection, 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’s note (citing Campbell

v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Neither party has timely objected to Magistrate Judge Major’s report and recommendation.

Case 3:10-cv-01168-JLS-BLM Document 14 Filed 05/12/11 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 - 10cv1168

(See R&R 4–5 (objections due by December 15, 2010).) Having reviewed the report and

recommendation, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error.

Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major’s report and recommendation

and (2) DISMISSES this case WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 12, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01168-JLS-BLM Document 14 Filed 05/12/11 Page 2 of 2