Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00597/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00597-2/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

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

JOHN W. WYSKIVER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv597-LAB(DHB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

vs. RECOMMENDATION

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

John W. Wyskiver challenges the denial of his claim for disability benefits under the

Social Security Act. The challenge was referred to Magistrate Judge Bartick for a Report and

Recommendation (“R & R”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, after which Wyskiver and the

Commissioner filed cross-motions for summary judgement. On March 14, 2016, Judge

Bartick issued his R & R, finding that Wyskiver’s summary judgment motion should be

granted, the Commissioner’s summary judgment motion should be denied and the case

should be remanded for further administrative proceedings. 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, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendation made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

- 1 - 15cv597-LAB ( DHB)

Case 3:15-cv-00597-LAB-DHB Document 21 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Under both the Standing Order of the undersigned Judge and the Local Rules of the

Court, the failure to file an objection to a motion may be construed as consent to the motion

being granted-and the Court extends this to the failure to file an objection to a R & R. Local

Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). The Court has reviewed Judge Bartick’s thorough R & R and finds it is

correct. It is ADOPTED. 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement is therefore GRANTED, Defendant’s motion

for summary judgement is DENIED and the case is REMANDED for further administrative

proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 4, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 15cv597-LAB ( DHB)

Case 3:15-cv-00597-LAB-DHB Document 21 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 2