Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01923/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01923-2/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

17cv1923-LAB (RNB)

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

JO ANN STEELE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv1923-LAB (RNB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Jo Ann Steele filed her complaint, seeking review of denial of social 

security disability benefits. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert 

N. Block for report and recommendation. After receiving briefing, on June 5, Judge 

Block issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R”). It found that the 

administrative law judge properly denied benefits, and recommended affirming that 

judge’s decision and dismissing the action with prejudice.

The deadline for objecting to the R&R has passed, and no objections were 

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

recommendation on dispositive matters. 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. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, 

Case 3:17-cv-01923-LAB-RNB Document 23 Filed 09/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv1923-LAB (RNB)

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

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate 

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).

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

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED and Defendant’s cross-motion 

is GRANTED. The administrative law judge’s decision is AFFIRMED and this 

action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01923-LAB-RNB Document 23 Filed 09/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2