UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 12, 2012
TODD PRESTON OKRUSCH,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. District Judge
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (3) DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 17]
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Todd Preston Okrusch's Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Michael J. Astrue's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and Magistrate Judge Peter Lewis' Report and Recommendation advising the Court to grant in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and to deny in part Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment.
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(s), 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 Lewis' Report and Recommenda-See R&R, Doc. No. 20, p. 22 (objections due by March 9, 2012).) Having reviewed the report and recommendation, the Court finds it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lewis' Report and Recommendation; (2) GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) DENIES IN PART Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.