(SS) Deuschel v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:2003cv02072 - Document 83 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/3/09 ORDERING the proposed Findings and Recommendations 77 are ADOPTED; pltf's Motion for Summary Judgment 57 is DENIED; the Commissioner's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 68 is GRANTED; and judgment is awarded to the Commissioner. (Carlos, K)

Download PDF
(SS) Deuschel v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAURIE A. DEUSCHEL, 12 13 Plaintiff, 2:03-cv-2072-GEB-GGH vs. 14 15 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 16 17 ORDER Defendant. __________________________________/ 18 On July 28, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 19 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 20 and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Objections were filed on August 18, 21 2009, response to the objections were filed on August 24, 2009, and they were considered by the 22 district judge. 23 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to 24 which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 25 Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 26 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. 2 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 3 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 4 1983). 5 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 6 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 9 10 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed July 28, 2009, are ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket #57) is denied; the 11 Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (docket #68) is granted, and judgment is 12 awarded to the Commissioner. 13 Dated: September 3, 2009 14 15 16 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.