Alvarez v. Berryhill

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 23, 2019
• Docket: 3:17-cv-02236
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH ALVAREZ, Case No.: 3:17-cv-2236-AJB-NLS

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 14 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. Commissioner of the Social Security 15 No. 31); Administration,

16 Defendant. (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 26); AND 18

19 (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY 20 JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 27.) 21

22 Presently before the Court are (1) Plaintiff Keith Alvarez’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for 23 summary judgment; and (2) Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill’s (“Defendant”) cross motion 24 for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 26–27.) The Court referred this matter to Magistrate 25 Judge Nita L. Stormes for a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued 26 on August 6, 2019. (Doc. No. 31.) The R&R recommends that the Court: (1) deny 27 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and (2) grant Defendant’s cross motion for 28 summary judgment. (Id. at 20–21.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to 1 || the R&R by August 21, 2019, and a reply to the objections no later than August 30, 2019. 2 || Ud. at 21.) 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 4 ||judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 5 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 6 ||and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 7 || made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 8 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 9 || satisfy itself that there 1s no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 10 recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 11 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 12 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the 13 || Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 14 ||hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R; (2) DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; 15 (3) GRANTS Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. 16 17 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 |! Dated: September 23, 2019 | □□ rz Le 20 Hon. Anthony J.@Battaglia 2] United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28