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.

Floyd v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 27, 2010

STEVEN R. FLOYD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action seeking review of a final decision denying disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act.

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge William Gallo for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and on April 19, 2010, Judge Gallo issued his report and recommendation (the "R&R") finding Plaintiff was disabled, and therefore recommending granting Plaintiff's motion and denying Defendant's motion. The R&R ordered the parties to file any objections no later than May 19, 2010.

A district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision on a dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(e); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." Id. Section 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149--50 (1985). "The statute makes it clear that 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-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Because no objections to the R&R were filed, the Court ADOPTS its factual findings. The Court has also reviewed the legal analysis and conclusions based on those findings, and finds them to be correct. The Court therefore ADOPTS the R&R, GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and DENIES Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Within seven calendar days from the date this order is issued, Plaintiff is directed to submit a proposed order in editable format awarding him benefits as requested.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100527

© 1992-2010 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.