Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00276/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00276-2/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 (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

07cv276

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARLENE C. PERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv276 L (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART CROSSMOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT [doc. nos. 15, 16]

Plaintiff Marlene C. Perry, appearing through counsel, filed a civil complaint against

defendant Michael J. Astrue challenging defendant’s denial of plaintiff’s claim for Social

Security benefits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in this action which

were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for a Report and Recommendation

("Report") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(c)(1)(c). The

magistrate judge filed the Report [doc. #19] and set a schedule for filing objections, if any, to the

Report. Objections to the Report were due on February 18, 2009. To date, neither party filed

objections to the Report nor requested additional time in which to file objections.

The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district court “shall 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

Case 3:07-cv-00276-L-JMA Document 20 Filed 02/19/09 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 07cv276

judge.” Id. Under this statute, “the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 238 (2003).

Having reviewed the record, cross-motions for summary judgment, and the Report and no

objections having been made to the Report, IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and

Recommendation in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in

part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. [doc. #15] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment. [doc. #16]. IT

IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding this case for further proceedings and directing the Clerk

of the Court to enter judgment in accordance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 19, 2009

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. JAN M. ADLER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00276-L-JMA Document 20 Filed 02/19/09 Page 2 of 2