Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00112/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00112-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

19-CV-112-AJB-WVG

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

PAUL P.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-CV-112-AJB-WVG

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 

No. 22);

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 19); AND

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 20).

Presently before the Court are (1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 

No. 19), and (2) Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 20). The 

Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo for a Report and 

Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued on February 11, 2020. (Doc. No. 22.) 

The Magistrate Judge recommends “Plaintiff’s MSJ be DENIED and that Defendant’s

Cross-MSJ be GRANTED.” (Id. at 10.) The parties were instructed to file written 

objections to the R&R by February 26, 2020, and a reply to the objections no later than 

Case 3:19-cv-00112-AJB-WVG Document 23 Filed 03/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-CV-112-AJB-WVG

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

March 4, 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) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; 

and (3) GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 5, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00112-AJB-WVG Document 23 Filed 03/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2