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.

Trinidad Ruiz v. Michael J. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 31, 2012

TRINIDAD RUIZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
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: ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; [Doc. No. 23] GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; [Doc. No. 18] DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND [Doc. No. 19] REMANDING THE ACTION TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal, filed on July 20, 2012, recommending that the Court deny in part and grant in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny 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. 18] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;

3. Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 19] is DENIED; and

4. The action is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120831

© 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.