Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00502/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00502-1/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

18-cv-0502-AJB-MSB

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

Teresa Pacheco,

Plaintiff,

v.

Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-0502-AJB-MSB

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 15);

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 12); and

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR REMAND (Doc. No. 

10)

Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s request that 

the Court review the commissioner’s denial of her claim for social security benefits. 

(Doc. No. 1.) Although Plaintiff styled her motion as a motion for remand, it is essentially 

a summary judgment motion and is referred to as such in the R&R. (Doc. No. 15 at 1 fn.1.) 

The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Block for a Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”). (Doc. Nos. 6, 14.) The R&R recommends (1) granting defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment, (Doc. No. 12), and (2) denying plaintiff’s motion, (Doc. No. 10). The 

parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R within fourteen days of being 

Case 3:18-cv-00502-AJB-MSB Document 17 Filed 01/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-0502-AJB-MSB

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

served with a copy of the R&R. (Doc. No. 15 at 7.) 

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); see also 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; 

see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Block’s R&R. Having 

reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Block’s R&R, 

(Doc. No. 15); (2) GRANTS Defendant’s summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 12); and 

(3) DENIES Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 10). The Court Clerk is 

instructed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00502-AJB-MSB Document 17 Filed 01/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2