Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00163/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00163-1/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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\10cv163 Order Adopting R&R.wpd, 91911 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY A. ROCKETT, Case No. 3:10-cv-00163-AJB-WVG

 Plaintiff,

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; (2)

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

 Respondent.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Mary A. Rockett’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

Defendant Michael J. Astrue’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and Magistrate Judge William

V. Gallo’s Report and Recommendation advising the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion and grant

Defendant’s motion. 

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, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there

Case 3:10-cv-00163-AJB-WVG Document 38 Filed 09/19/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\10cv163 Order Adopting R&R.wpd, 91911 -2-

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).

Neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Gallo’s Report and

Recommendation. (See R & R 31-32 (objections due by September 6, 2011).) Having reviewed the

report and recommendation, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Gallo’s Report and

Recommendation is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court

hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gallo’s report and recommendation; (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) GRANTS Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 16, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00163-AJB-WVG Document 38 Filed 09/19/11 Page 2 of 2