United States District Court, S.D. California
May 16, 2014
LESLIE MARIE SAVIDGE, Plaintiff,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Defendant.
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 16, 19)
JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Leslie Marie Savidge's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ") (ECF No. 16) and Defendant Michael J. Astrue's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment ("cross-MSJ") (ECF No. 19). Also before the Court is Magistrate Judge Stormes' Report and Recommendation ("R&R") advising that the Court deny Plaintiff's MSJ and grant Defendant's cross-MSJ. (ECF No. 21.)
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, the parties have failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge Stormes' 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: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stormes' R&R in its entirety, (2) DENIES Plaintiff's MSJ, and (3) GRANTS Defendant's cross-MSJ. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.