UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 17, 2012
KATHLEEN A. KNOWLES,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; [Doc. No. 23]
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; [Doc. No.16]
[Doc. No. 19]
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo, filed on December 2, 2011, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 23]. Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge's R&R.
The duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate Judge's R&R are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a R&R, "[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149--50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the R&R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121--22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may nevertheless "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); Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006); Or. Natural Desert Ass'n v. Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 2006).
After reviewing the R&R in its entirety, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's conclusions are thorough, well-reasoned, and supported by the record. In light of the foregoing, and the fact that neither party objected to the R&R, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 23] is ADOPTED in its entirety;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 16] is DENIED; and
a. Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 19] is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.