Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00811/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00811-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405wc Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

1

18cv811-LAB (JLB)

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

ABRAHAM MOLABOLA 

LAGARDE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv811-LAB (JLB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Abraham Lagarde filed a complaint, appealing a denial of benefits 

by the Commissioner of Social Security. This matter was referred to Magistrate 

Judge Jill Burkhardt for report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

The parties filed a joint motion (Docket no. 17), giving their respective 

positions. On February 19, 2019, Judge Burkhardt issued her report and 

recommendation (the “R&R”), which recommended affirming the Commissioner’s 

decision.

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, 

Case 3:18-cv-00811-LAB-JLB Document 20 Filed 03/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv811-LAB (JLB)

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

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 

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).

Objections to the R&R were due March 6, 2019, but none have been filed. 

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

the R&R recommended a disposition of the arguments in the joint motion (Docket 

no. 17), this order amounts to a ruling on that motion, and the Clerk is directed to 

terminate it. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, and this action is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2019

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00811-LAB-JLB Document 20 Filed 03/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2