UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 16, 2011
MARY A. ROCKETT,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. District Judge
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Mary A. Rockett's Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Michael J. Astrue's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo's Report and Recommendation advising the Court to deny Plaintiff's motion and grant Defendant's motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge 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 finding or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also 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(b), Advisory Committee Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
Neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Gallo's Report and Recommendation. (See R & R 31-32 (objections due by September 6, 2011).) Having reviewed the report and recommendation, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Gallo's Report and Recommendation is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gallo's report and recommendation; (2) DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) GRANTS Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.