Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Perry v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 19, 2009

MARLENE C. PERRY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [doc. nos. 15, 16]

Plaintiff Marlene C. Perry, appearing through counsel, filed a civil complaint against defendant Michael J. Astrue challenging defendant's denial of plaintiff's claim for Social Security benefits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in this action which were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for a Report and Recommendation ("Report") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(c)(1)(c). The magistrate judge filed the Report [doc. #19] and set a schedule for filing objections, if any, to the Report. Objections to the Report were due on February 18, 2009. To date, neither party filed objections to the Report nor requested additional time in which to file objections.

The district court's role in reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district court "shall 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 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. Under this statute, "the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna- , 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 238 (2003).

Having reviewed the record, cross-motions for summary judgment, and the Report and no objections having been made to the Report, IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. [doc. #15] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment. [doc. #16]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding this case for further proceedings and directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in accordance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090219

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.