Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00536/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00536-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

ROSALIN D. SUTTON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-536 JLS (WVG)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; (3) GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 15, 17, 18)

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15),

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) and Magistrate Judge Gallo’s report and

recommendation, which advises that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion and grant Defendant’s motion

(ECF No. 18).

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

- 1 - 11cv536

Case 3:11-cv-00536-JLS-WVG Document 19 Filed 05/11/12 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

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, Plaintiff has failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge Gallo’s report and

recommendation. 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 Gallo’s report and recommendation, (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and

(3) GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. This Order concludes the litigation in this

matter. The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 11, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 2 - 11cv536

Case 3:11-cv-00536-JLS-WVG Document 19 Filed 05/11/12 Page 2 of 2