Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02243/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02243-1/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 (DIWW)

---

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

- 1 - 08CV2243-MMA (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY R. DOW,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08CV2243-MMA (POR)

ORDER:

ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION;

[Doc. No. 17]

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

[Doc. No. 10]

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS -MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Doc. No. 12]

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Louisa S.

Porter, filed on December 1, 2009, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 17]. Neither party

objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

The duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate Judge’s R&R are set forth in

Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties

object to a R&R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions

of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,

Case 3:08-cv-02243-MMA-POR Document 18 Filed 01/05/10 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 - 08CV2243-MMA (POR)

149–50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the R&R de novo.

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may nevertheless “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); Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006); Or. Natural Desert Ass’n

v. Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 2006). 

After reviewing the R&R in its entirety, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s

conclusions are thorough, well-reasoned, and supported by the record. In light of the foregoing,

and that fact that neither party objected to the R&R, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R in its

entirety. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 17) is ADOPTED

in its entirety; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED; and

a. Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 5, 2010

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02243-MMA-POR Document 18 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 2