Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02393/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02393-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO LUIS, II,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV2393 JLS (JMA)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; (3) GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

AND (4) REMANDING CASE FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

(ECF Nos. 14, 15, 17)

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Armando Luis, II’s (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant

Michael J. Astrue’s (“Defendant”) cross-motions for summary judgment. (Pl.’s MSJ, ECF No.

14); (Def.’s MSJ, ECF No. 15) Also before the Court are Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler’s report

and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings. (R&R, ECF No. 17)

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 R&R. The district court must “make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject,

- 1 - 10cv2393

Case 3:10-cv-02393-JLS-JMA Document 18 Filed 08/30/12 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

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)).

Here, Magistrate Judge Adler directed the parties to file any objections to the R&R on or

before August 15, 2012. (R&R 17, ECF No. 17) Neither party has filed timely objections to the

R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains

no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Adler’s R&R and

Orders as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

IN PART, as set forth in the R&R;

(2) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

IN PART, as set forth in the R&R; and

(3) This case is REMANDED for further proceedings, as set forth in the R&R.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 30, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 2 - 10cv2393

Case 3:10-cv-02393-JLS-JMA Document 18 Filed 08/30/12 Page 2 of 2