Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02198/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02198-1/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 10cv2198

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Todd Preston Okrusch,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 10cv2198 AJB (PCL)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; (2)

GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

AND (3) DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Doc. No. 17]

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Todd Preston Okrusch’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

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

Lewis’ Report and Recommendation advising the Court to grant in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment and to deny in part Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment.

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).

Case 3:10-cv-02198-AJB-PCL Document 21 Filed 03/12/12 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\SSCASES\Okrusch\10cv2198.Order.Adopting.R&R.wpd 2 10cv2198

Neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Lewis’ Report and Recommendation. (See R&R, Doc. No. 20, p. 22 (objections due by March 9, 2012).) Having reviewed the report and

recommendation, the Court finds it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly,

the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lewis’ Report and Recommendation; (2) GRANTS IN

PART Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Cross-Motion

for Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 12, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02198-AJB-PCL Document 21 Filed 03/12/12 Page 2 of 2