Alzayadie v. Astrue

Full title: NAZDAR R. ALZAYADIE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, S.D. California

Date published: Aug 11, 2010

09-CV-1886 JLS (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2010)

Opinion

NAZDAR R. ALZAYADIE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, Defendant. No. 09-CV-1886 JLS (BLM). United States District Court, S.D. California. August 11, 2010

          ORDER: (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE ADLER'S R&R, (2) GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (4) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE, AND (5) REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, (Doc. Nos. 16, 19, 23, & 25.)

          JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.

         Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Nazdar R. Alzayadie's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 16) Defendant Michael Astrue's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 19) Defendant Michael Astrue's motion to strike, (Doc. No. 23) and Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler's Report and Recommendation (R&R). (Doc. No. 25.)

         Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the duties of a district court 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." 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). 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." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

         Neither party has timely objected to Magistrate Judge Adler's R&R. Thus, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error and found none. Consequently, the R&R is ADOPTED.

         Pursuant to Judge Adler's recommendation, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART, Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and Defendant's motion to strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. This case is hereby REMANDED for further proceedings. On remand, the ALJ SHALL PROCEED in conformance with Judge Adler's directions in the R&R.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.