Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01874/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01874-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

18cv1874-MMA (LL)

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

JULIE ANN THORNE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv1874-MMA (LL)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 21]

GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT;

[Doc. Nos. 11, 17]

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR REMAND AND CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; AND

[Doc. Nos. 12, 18]

REMANDING FOR THE RECALCULATION AND AWARD OF 

BENEFITS

On August 10, 2018, Plaintiff Julie Ann Thorne, proceeding pro se, filed this social 

security appeal challenging the denial of her request to review the Administrative Law 

Judge’s June 1, 2016 “fully favorable decision.” Doc. No. 1. The Court referred all 

Case 3:18-cv-01874-MMA-LL Document 22 Filed 06/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv1874-MMA (LL)

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

matters arising in this appeal to the assigned magistrate judge for report and 

recommendation pursuant to section 63(b)(1)(B) of title 28 of the United States Code and 

Civil Local Rule 72.1. Doc. Nos. 3, 10. On May 14, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a 

Report recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment, deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment and motion 

for remand, and remanding the case for a calculation and award of benefits based on 

Plaintiff’s January 24, 2006 application date. Doc. No. 21 at 2.

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). Here, neither party has objected to the R&R. See

Docket. 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. 2013) (en banc). As such, the Court 

ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN 

PART Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for 

summary judgment and motion for remand, and REMANDS this case for a calculation 

and award of benefits based on Plaintiff’s January 24, 2006 application date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01874-MMA-LL Document 22 Filed 06/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2