Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01873/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01873-2/pdf.json

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

---

1 

18cv1873-LAB (LL)

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 

TANYA GEANNA MACLEOD, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv1873-LAB (LL) 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION, AND 

REMANDING FOR FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS 

 Plaintiff filed her complaint seeking judicial review of a decision by the 

Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for a period of disability 

and disability insurance benefits. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge 

Jan Adler for a report and recommendation. Later, Magistrate Judge Robert Block 

was appointed, and the referral became his responsibility. The parties filed cross 

motions for summary judgment. 

 On May 29, 2019, Judge Block issued his report and recommendation (the 

“R&R”), which recommended granting Plaintiff’s motion and denying Defendant’s. 

Objections to the R&R were due within 14 days, i.e., by June 12, but neither party 

has filed any. 

 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 

Case 3:18-cv-01873-LAB-RNB Document 30 Filed 06/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

18cv1873-LAB (LL)

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

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, 

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 (Docket no. 18) is GRANTED and Defendant’s motion (Docket 

no. 24) is DENIED. The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and this matter 

is ORDERED remanded for further administrative proceedings pursuant to 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The orders to show cause issued earlier in 

the case are DISCHARGED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 24, 2019 

Hon. Larry Alan Burns 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01873-LAB-RNB Document 30 Filed 06/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2