Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02008/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02008-1/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 10cv2008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERESA GUARDADO NUNEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 10cv2008 AJB (WMc)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; (2)

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Doc. No. 15]

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Teresa Guardado Nunez’s Motion for Summary

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

William McCurine’s Report and Recommendation advising the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment and to grant 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-02008-AJB-WMC Document 16 Filed 03/09/12 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\Nunez\10cv2008.Order.Adopting.R&R.wpd 2 10cv2008

Neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge McCurine’s Report and Recommendation. (See R&R, Doc. No. 15, p. 11 (objections due by February 24, 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 McCurine’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: March 9, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02008-AJB-WMC Document 16 Filed 03/09/12 Page 2 of 2