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.

Wayman Ellis v. Michael J. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 22, 2011

WAYMAN ELLIS,
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; (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (Doc. Nos. 10, 12, & 14.) (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 10), Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 12), and Magistrate Judge Major's report and recommendation recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's motion and deny Defendant's cross-motion. (Doc. No.14.)

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, no party has filed a timely objection to Judge Major's report and recommendation. 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 Major's report and recommendation, (2) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and (3) DENIES Defendant's motion for summary judgment. This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110622

© 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.