Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00226/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00226-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

17-cv-0226-AJB-JMA

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

Louis Williams,

Plaintiff,

v.

Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-cv-0226-AJB-JMA

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 24);

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 21); and

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 15).

Presently before the Court is plaintiff’s social security appeal. (Doc. No. 1.) The 

Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 24.) The R&R recommends: (1) granting 

defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment; and (2) denying plaintiff’s motion. 

(Id. at 22.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by February

16, 2018, and any reply to objections filed by February 23, 2018. (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 

Case 3:17-cv-00226-AJB-JMA Document 25 Filed 04/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17-cv-0226-AJB-JMA

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

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); see also 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; 

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

Neither party filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court 

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

hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Adler’s R&R, (Doc. No. 24); (2) GRANTS 

defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 21); and (3) DENIES

plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. (Doc. No. 15).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00226-AJB-JMA Document 25 Filed 04/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2