Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01972/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01972-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0401 Social Security Act - Trust Funds

---

1

18-cv-1972-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

ADELLE F.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-1972-AJB (MSB)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 

No. 20); AND

(2) REVERSING AND REMANDING 

FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Presently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Judicial Review of the 

Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. No. 19.) The Court referred 

this matter to Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg for a Report and Recommendation (the 

“R&R”), which was issued on February 7, 2020. (Doc. No. 20.) The Magistrate Judge

recommends “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).” (Id. at 2.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the 

R&R by February 21, 2020, and a reply to the objections no later than February 28, 2020. 

(Id. at 25) 

Case 3:18-cv-01972-AJB-MSB Document 22 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-1972-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

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; and (2) REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner. 

The Court REMANDS the case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 2, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-01972-AJB-MSB Document 22 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2