Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01048/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01048-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

16cv1048-CAB-JMA

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

INDIA VIOLA BAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv1048-CAB-JMA

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc.

No. 21]; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 17]; and (3) 

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 18]

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler, filed on July 7, 2017, recommending that the Court deny 

Plaintiff India Baker’s motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant 

Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 21.] 

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 portion 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 

Case 3:16-cv-01048-CAB-JMA Document 22 Filed 08/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16cv1048-CAB-JMA

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 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.Cvi.P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 

Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[T]he district judge must review the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 

otherwise.”).

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Adler’s R&R. 

[See Doc. No. 21 at 25 (objections due by July 24, 2017).] Having reviewed the R&R, the 

Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, 

the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Adler’s report and recommendation; 

(2) DENIES plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and (3) GRANTS defendant’s 

cross-motion for summary judgment. 

This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01048-CAB-JMA Document 22 Filed 08/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2