(SS) Srivastava v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2009cv00332 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL Findings and Recommendations Recommending the Grant of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Affirming the Agency's Denial of Benefits 17 and 20 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/13/2010. (Martin, S)
Download PDF
(SS) Srivastava v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SAVITRI SRIVASTAVA, 10 11 12 Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00332-LJO-SMS AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THE GRANT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE AGENCY’S DENIAL OF BENEFITS 13 Defendant. 14 / (Docs. 17 and 20) 15 Plaintiff Savitri Srivastava sought judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner 16 of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for disability insurance benefits 17 under Title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.) (the “Act”). On February 16, 18 2010, Defendant moved for summary judgment affirming its denial of benefits. On November 4, 19 2010, the Magistrate Judge signed Findings and Recommendations recommending that this Court 20 affirm the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits to Plaintiff. 21 The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 22 any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. No 23 party filed timely objections with the court, but Plaintiff served objections on Defendant’s 24 counsel on or about December 6, 2010. Doc. 23. Upon receiving a copy of the Court’s prior 25 order adopting findings and recommendations (Doc. 21), Defendant filed Plaintiff’s objections 26 with the Court. 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has reviewed 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 this case de novo and has considered Plaintiff’s objections. Having carefully reviewed the entire 2 file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 3 legal analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations, filed 5 November 4, 2010, are adopted in full, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is 6 granted. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: b9ed48 December 13, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2