Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01558/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01558-1/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 (DIWC)

---

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 - 09cv1558

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS HERNANDEZ OLIVERA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-CV-1558 JLS (RBB)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; (3) GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 12, 14, 15)

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 12),

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 14), and Magistrate Judge Brooks’s report and

recommendation recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s motion and deny Plaintiff’s motion

(Doc. No. 15).

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

Case 3:09-cv-01558-JLS-RBB Document 16 Filed 01/14/11 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 - 09cv1558

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 Brooks’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 Brooks’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: January 14, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01558-JLS-RBB Document 16 Filed 01/14/11 Page 2 of 2