Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00110/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00110-1/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-00110-AJB-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

KENNETH EDWARD MAYE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-cv-00110-AJB-RNB

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 

No. 23);

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 15); AND

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 18.)

Presently before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff Kenneth Edward Maye’s (“Plaintiff”) 

motion for summary judgment; and (2) Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s 

(“Defendant”) cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 15, 18.) The Court referred 

this matter to Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block for a Report and Recommendation (the 

“R&R”), which was issued on September 25, 2019. (Doc. No. 23.) The Magistrate Judge

recommends that the Court: (1) grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and (2) 

deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 10.) The parties were 

Case 3:19-cv-00110-AJB-RNB Document 24 Filed 11/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-cv-00110-AJB-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

instructed to file written objections to the R&R by October 9, 2019 and a reply to the 

objections no later than October 23, 2019. (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) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment;

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 15, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00110-AJB-RNB Document 24 Filed 11/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2