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.

Anna Marie S Sibala v. Michael J Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 11, 2011

ANNA MARIE S SIBALA,
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) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 14, 16, 19)

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Anna Marie Sibala's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14), Defendant Michael Astrue's cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16), and Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo's report and recommendation advising the Court to deny Plaintiff's motion and grant Defendant's motion (R&R, ECF No. 19).

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)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.").

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Bencivengo's report and recommendation. (See R&R 24--25 (objections due by July 5, 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 Bencivengo's report and recommendation, (2) DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and (3) GRANTS Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110711

© 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.