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.

Waldon v. Astrue

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

May 20, 2013

VAL J. WALDON, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No. 19); (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 91); AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 18).

ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA, District Judge.

On June 1, 2012, Plaintiff Val. J. Waldon filed this appeal pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of an adverse final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. No. 1.) On December 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 16), and on January 25, 2013, Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 18). On April 26, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 19.) The R&R also ordered that any objection must be filed no later than May 13, 2013. ( Id. at 18.) To date, neither party has filed an objection or made a request for additional time to do so. Both summary judgment motions and the R&R are presently before the Court.

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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. (Doc. No. 19.) For the reasons stated in the R&R, which are incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 16), DENIES Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 18), and REMANDS the case to the Social Security Administration for proceedings consistent with the R&R. Upon remand, the Clerk of Court will close the district court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.