Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00276/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00276-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

TANYA LEIGH FROOM,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-276 JLS (DHB)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; (2)

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; AND (3) DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 21, 24, 26)

vs.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security

Defendant.

Presently before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment by Plaintiff

Tanya Leigh Froom (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of

Social Security (“Defendant”). (“Pl.’s MSJ, ECF No. 21; Def.’s MSJ, ECF No. 24.)

Also before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from Magistrate

Judge David H. Bartick advising the Court to grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment and to deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (R&R, ECF No. 26.) 

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R.

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 R&R. The district court

must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection

- 1 - 12cv276

Case 3:12-cv-00276-JLS-DHB Document 27 Filed 07/18/13 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

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 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, neither party has filed timely objections to Magistrate Judge Bartick’s

R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and

contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge

Bartick’s R&R (ECF No. 26), (2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

(ECF No. 21); and (3) DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No.

24). For the reasons stated in the R&R, which are incorporated herein by reference, the

Court REMANDS the case to the Social Security Administration for further

proceedings consistent with the R&R. Upon remand, the Clerk of Court shall close the

district court action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 17, 2013

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv276

Case 3:12-cv-00276-JLS-DHB Document 27 Filed 07/18/13 Page 2 of 2