Dow v. Astrue

Full title: LARRY R. DOW, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

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

Date published: Jan 5, 2010

08CV2243-MMA (POR) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2010)

Opinion

LARRY R. DOW, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. No. 08CV2243-MMA (POR). United States District Court, S.D. California. January 5, 2010

          ORDER: ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; [Doc. No. 17] DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; [Doc. No. 10] GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS -MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 12]

          MICHAEL M. ANELLO, District Judge.

         Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter, filed on December 1, 2009, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 17]. Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

         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 that 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. 17) is ADOPTED in its entirety;

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED; and

a. Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.