Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00249/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00249-1/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

1

Michael J. Astrue is substituted for his predecessor, Jo Anne B. Barnhart, as

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. See 42 U.S.C. §405(g); FED.R.CIV.P.

25(d)(1).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alicia Valenzuela, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue,1

 Commissioner of

Social Security, 

Defendant

)

) No. CV 06-249-TUC-FRZ (HCE)

)

) ORDER

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment pertaining to

the denial of disability benefits. Also pending before the Court is Defendant's Cross-Motion

for Summary Judgment regarding the same denial of disability benefits. 

United States Magistrate Judge Hector C. Estrada issued a Report and

Recommendation on January 22, 2008. In that Report and Recommendation, Magistrate

Judge Estrada recommended denying Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment,

granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and

remanding the case to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) for reconsideration consistent

with the Report and Recommendation.

The Report and Recommendation indicated that any party could file written objections

within ten days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. The

Case 4:06-cv-00249-FRZ Document 16 Filed 02/19/08 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 -

parties have not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time for

filing objections has expired. As such, the Court will not consider any objections.

The Court has reviewed the entire record and concludes that Magistrate Judge

Estrada’s recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v.

Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) United States Magistrate Judge Estrada's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #15) is

ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED.

(2) Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #11) is DENIED.

(3) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #10) is GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART, and this case is REMANDED to the ALJ for reconsideration consistent

with the Report and Recommendation.

(4) The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file

in this matter.

DATED this 19th day of February, 2008.

Case 4:06-cv-00249-FRZ Document 16 Filed 02/19/08 Page 2 of 2