Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02306/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02306-1/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

17cv2306-MMA (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

YVETTE M. DESSERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv2306-MMA (RNB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 18]

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

[Doc. No. 13]

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; AND 

[Doc. No. 14]

REMANDING FOR FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS

On November 14, 2017, Plaintiff Yvette M. Dessert filed this social security appeal 

challenging the denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). 

Doc. No. 1. The Court referred all matters arising in this appeal to the Honorable Peter 

Case 3:17-cv-02306-MMA-RNB Document 19 Filed 07/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv2306-MMA (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

C. Lewis, United States Magistrate Judge, for report and recommendation pursuant to 

section 636(b)(1)(B) of title 28 of the United States Code and Civil Local Rule 72.1. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 72.1; Doc. No. 3. On June 14, 2018, this 

case was reassigned to the Honorable Robert N. Block, United States Magistrate Judge, 

for report and recommendation. Doc. No. 17.

The parties have filed motions for summary judgment. Doc. Nos. 13, 14. On July 

10, 2018, Judge Block issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report recommending that 

the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion, deny Defendant’s cross-motion, and remand the case

for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. No. 18. 

Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for filing 

objections has expired. See Doc. No. 18 at 14 (“Any party having objections to the 

Court’s proposed findings and recommendations shall serve and file specific written 

objections within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and 

Recommendation.”); see also Docket.

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a report and recommendation 

(“R&R”), “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those 

portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas 

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When neither party objects to an R&R, or to 

portions thereof, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review, or “any 

review at all.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149; see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 

n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 

2003) (en banc). A district judge may nevertheless “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); Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006); Or. Natural 

Desert Ass’n v. Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 2006).

Case 3:17-cv-02306-MMA-RNB Document 19 Filed 07/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv2306-MMA (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

The Court has considered the pleadings and memoranda of the parties as well as 

the administrative record, and has made a review and determination in accordance with 

the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law.

Accordingly:

1. The Court ADOPTS Judge Block’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 

18] in its entirety;

2. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 

13];

3. The Court DENIES Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 

[Doc. No. 14]; and

4. The Court REMANDS this matter for further proceedings pursuant to 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02306-MMA-RNB Document 19 Filed 07/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3