Parrish v. Saul

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TERESA P., Case No.: 19cv1321-CAB-RBB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 12 v. AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 14]; (2) GRANTING IN PART 13 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of AND DENYING IN PART Social Security, 14 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR Defendant. SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 15 10]; (3) GRANTING IN PART AND 16 DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 17 JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 12]; and (4) 18 REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 19

21 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 22 Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks, filed on February 27, 2020, recommending that the 23 Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff Teresa P.’s motion for summary judgment, 24 grant in part and deny in part Defendant Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, 25 and remand for further proceedings. [Doc. No. 14.] 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 27 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 28 1 || district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report to which 2 || objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 3 || or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also 4 || United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 5 || F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court 6 || “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 7 accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Cvi.P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 8 || Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. 9 || Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003)(“[T]he district judge must review the 10 || magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 11 || otherwise.”’). 12 Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Brooks’ R&R. 13 || [See Doc. No. 14 at 27 (objections due by March 20, 2020).] Having reviewed the R&R, 14 || the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 15 || Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Brooks’ report and 16 || recommendation; (2) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion 17 || for summary judgment; (3) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s 18 || cross-motion for summary judgment; and (4) REMANDS the case for further 19 || proceedings. 20 This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: April 3, 2020 € 23 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28