Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Armando Luis, Ii v. Michael J. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 30, 2012

ARMANDO LUIS, II,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. SammartinoUnited States District Judge

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) GRANTING IN PART AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (4) REMANDING CASE FOR DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (ECF Nos. 14, 15, 17)

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Armando Luis, II's ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Michael J. Astrue's ("Defendant") cross-motions for summary judgment. (Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 14); (Def.'s MSJ, ECF No. 15) Also before the Court are Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler's report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, grant in part and deny in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings. (R&R, ECF No. 17)

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 R&R. 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, Magistrate Judge Adler directed the parties to file any objections to the R&R on or before August 15, 2012. (R&R 17, ECF No. 17) Neither party has filed timely objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Adler's R&R and Orders as follows:

(1) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as set forth in the R&R;

(2) Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as set forth in the R&R; and

(3) This case is REMANDED for further proceedings, as set forth in the R&R. IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120830

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.