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.

Koontz v. Commissioner of the Social Complaint Security Administration

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 23, 2010

MATTHEW JAMES KOONTZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL COMPLAINT SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT.

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

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND ORDER DISMISSING

On November 20, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Judicial Review and Remedy on Administrative Decision Under the Social Security Act, requesting that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be reversed. That decision denied him a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income payments.

The Administrative Law Judge who heard Plaintiff's claim determined he was not disabled during the relevant time period and the Appeals Council denied his request for review.

This matter was referred to Magistrate William Gallo for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. On July 26, 2010, Judge Gallo issued his report and recommendation (the "R&R"), recommending that Plaintiff's motion be denied and Defendant's motion be granted. The R&R also permitted the parties to file objections to the R&R no later than August 16, 2010. Neither party has filed objections to the R&R.

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); see 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). "The court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. §636(b). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. 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 Ninth Circuit has interpreted the language of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1), and determined that 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).

The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds it correct. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and GRANTS Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits is AFFIRMED and this action is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100823

© 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.