From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stenson v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 4, 2012
CASE NO. 11-CV-1054 BEN (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 11-CV-1054 BEN (BLM)

04-04-2012

GINGER STENSON, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.


ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION


(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Docket Nos. 17, 18, 20]

On October 27,2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (Docket No, 17), and on November 30, 2011, Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 18). Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff s motion for summary judgment be denied and Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment be granted. (Docket No. 20.) Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due March 30,2012. (Id) Neither party filed any objections. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "|T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see also Wang v, Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992,1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

In the absence of any objections, the Court fully ADOPTS Judge Major's Report and Recommendation. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________

HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Stenson v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 4, 2012
CASE NO. 11-CV-1054 BEN (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2012)
Case details for

Stenson v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:GINGER STENSON, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 4, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. 11-CV-1054 BEN (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2012)

Citing Cases

Lapp v. Colvin

(See Doc. # 15-3 at 11-13 of 15). The ALJ's determination of Ms. Lapp's mental RFC is supported by the…

Devery v. Colvin

In addition, the cases on which the Commissioner relies are distinguishable because they concern whether it…