Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00555/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00555-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0402 Social Security Benefits

---

1

19cv555-LAB (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAVON ANNETTE SEAWOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv555-LAB (WVG)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge William Gallo for a report and 

recommendation. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, and 

Judge Gallo issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R”) on April 2, 2020. 

Because counsel for both parties are capable of filing electronically, the Court 

ordered that any objections be filed by May 1, regardless of any COVID-19 related 

restrictions in place. (See Docket no. 22.) Neither party has filed objections.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and 

recommendation on dispositive matters. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b). “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's 

disposition that has been properly objected to.” Id. Section 636(b)(1) similarly 

requires that a district judge “make a de novo determination of those portions of 

Case 3:19-cv-00555-LAB-WVG Document 23 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv555-LAB (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection 

is made.” “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.

This section does not require some lesser review by the district court when 

no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). The “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).

Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2020

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00555-LAB-WVG Document 23 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2