Opinion
Case No.: 16cv1048-CAB-JMA
08-11-2017
INDIA VIOLA BAKER, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 21]; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 17]; and (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 18]
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler, filed on July 7, 2017, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff India Baker's motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant Commissioner's motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 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 report and recommendation. The district court must "make a de novo determination of those portion 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.Cvi.P. 72 advisory committee's note (citing Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)("[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.").
Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Adler's R&R. [See Doc. No. 21 at 25 (objections due by July 24, 2017).] 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 Adler's report and recommendation; (2) DENIES plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and (3) GRANTS defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.
This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 11, 2017
/s/_________
Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
United States District Judge