Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01256/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01256-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0206 Surgeon General - Assignment of Officers

---

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

SAUNDRA RUBALCABA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 14cv1256 AJB (MDD) 

ORDER:

1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, [Doc. No.

26];

2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 15];

3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, [Doc. No. 21].

Pending before the Court Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 15) 

and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 21). The Court referred

the matter to Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin.

On May 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42

U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s

denial of disability benefits. (Doc. No. 1.) On October 14, 2014 the Commissioner filed an

answer. (Doc. No. 11.) On November 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment requesting reversal of the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) final decision.

1 14cv1256

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 27 Filed 09/04/15 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

(Doc. No. 15.) Magistrate Judge Dembin’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

recommendsthisCourt deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement, grant Defendant’s

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and affirm the ALJ’s decision. (Doc. No. 26.) The

parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R no later than September 2,

2015, and replies no later than September 9, 2015. (Id. at 15.) As of the date of this order,

neither party has filed an objection to the R&R. 

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

judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The

district judge 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 finding or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United

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

objection(s), 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(b), Advisory Committee

Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

Here despite being represented by counsel, Plaintiff has failed to file timely objections

to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Dembin’s

R&Risthorough, wellreasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby:

(1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dembin’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety; (2)

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) GRANTS Defendant’s CrossMotion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 4, 2015

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

2 14cv1256

Case 3:14-cv-01256-AJB-MDD Document 27 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 2