Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01617/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01617-4/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

17cv1617-LAB (BLM)

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

JON PAUL FANLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Comm'r of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv1617-LAB (BLM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND 

ORDER AWARDING 

ATTORNEY’S FEES

Judge Major issued her report and recommendation (the “R&R”), which 

recommended an award of attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (EAJA), and costs as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1920. No 

objections to the R&R 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 recommendations made by the magistrate 

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This section does not require some lesser review by 

Case 3:17-cv-01617-LAB-BLM Document 26 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv1617-LAB (BLM)

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 district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–

50 (1985). The “statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the 

magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, 

but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

The Court has reviewed the R&R, finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. The 

joint motion for fees (Docket no. 24) is GRANTED. The Court awards $3,617.77 

under the EAJA, and no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, to be paid subject to the 

terms of the joint motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2020

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01617-LAB-BLM Document 26 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2