Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00790/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00790-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

18-cv-00790-AJB-MDD

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

LAURA C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-00790-AJB-MDD

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 

No. 24);

(2) GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No.

21); 

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 22.); AND

(4) REMANDING FOR FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS

Presently before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff Laura Joyce Copenhaver’s (“Plaintiff”) 

motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 21); and (2) Defendant Commissioner of Social 

Security’s (“Defendant”) cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 22). The Court 

Case 3:18-cv-00790-AJB-MDD Document 25 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-00790-AJB-MDD

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

referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin for a Report and 

Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued on January 2, 2020. (Doc. No. 24.) The 

Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court: (1) grant in part Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment; and (2) deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 

2.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by January 17, 2020

and a reply to the objections no later than January 24, 2020. (Id.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 

a de novo determination of those portions 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); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 

614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), 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. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the 

Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 

hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R; (2) GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment; and (3) DENIES Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. The Court 

REMANDS the case for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 3, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-00790-AJB-MDD Document 25 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2