Parrish v. Saul

Opinion

TERESA P., Case No.: 19cv1321-CAB-RBB

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

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks, filed on February 27, 2020, recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff Teresa P.’s motion for summary judgment, grant in part and deny in part Defendant Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings. [Doc. No. 14.] 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 (th 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 Brooks’ R&R. [See Doc. No. 14 at 27 (objections due by March 20, 2020).] 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 Brooks’ report and recommendation; (2) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; (3) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment; and (4) REMANDS the case for further proceedings. This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file. Dated: April 3, 2020 € Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge