UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 11, 2012
ROSALIN D. SUTTON,
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 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 15, 17, 18)
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15), Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) and Magistrate Judge Gallo's report and recommendation, which advises that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion and grant Defendant's motion (ECF No. 18).
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)).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge Gallo's report and recommendation. 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 Gallo's report and recommendation, (2) DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and (3) GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment. This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.