UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 16, 2011
JAMES LAWRENCE RICH,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; [Doc. No. 20]
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; [Doc. No. 15]
DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS -MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 16]
On September 28, 2010, Plaintiff James Rich filed this appeal of the final judgment of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The matter was referred to the Honorable Barbara L. Major, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1. On September 19, 2011, Judge Major filed a thorough and well-reasoned Report containing findings and conclusions, upon which she bases her recommendation that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part, deny Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, and remand this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with her recommendation.
Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for filing objections has expired.
The Court has considered the pleadings and memoranda of the parties as well as the administrative record, and has made a review and determination in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Accordingly, good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 20] is ADOPTED in its entirety;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 15] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and
3. Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 16] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.