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.

Alicia Orozco Michel v. Michael J. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 28, 2011

ALICIA OROZCO MICHEL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PROCEEDINGS (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S (4) REMANDING FOR FURTHER (Doc. Nos. 14--16)

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 14), Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 15), and Magistrate Judge Porter's report and recommendation advising the Court to grant Plaintiff's motion, deny Defendant's motion, and remand for further proceedings (Doc. No. 16).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district court 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 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673--76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, 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 advisory committee's note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Porter's report and recommendation. (See R&R 20 (objections due by February 25, 2011).) Having reviewed the report and recommendation, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Porter's report and recommendation, (2) GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (3) DENIES Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, and (4) REMANDS this matter for further proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110228

© 1992-2011 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.