Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01661/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01661-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

18cv1661-WQH-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

SHANEENA WILLIAMSMCGLOSTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv1661-WQH-RNB

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation issued 

by United States Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block (ECF No. 21), recommending that 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) be granted, the Commissioner’s 

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) be denied, and that Judgment be 

entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further 

administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b). 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 

Case 3:18-cv-01661-WQH-RNB Document 22 Filed 09/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv1661-WQH-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

district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 

which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the 

Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 

findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”).

No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 

reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the Parties. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) is 

adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) is 

GRANTED. the Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is 

DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the 

Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant 

to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Dated: September 25, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01661-WQH-RNB Document 22 Filed 09/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2