Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01649/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01649-2/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

18-cv-1649-WQH-MSB

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

HIPOLITO DE LA ROSA DE LA 

ROSA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-1649-WQH-MSB

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation issued 

by United States Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg (ECF No. 18), pursuant to Plaintiff and 

Defendant’s joint motion for judicial review (EFC No. 17), recommending that Plaintiff’s 

request for reversal of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration’s decision and 

remand be granted and Defendant’s request be denied.

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b). 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 

district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 

Case 3:18-cv-01649-WQH-MSB Document 19 Filed 08/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-1649-WQH-MSB

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

which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 

2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 

(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 

review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 

correct.”).

No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 

reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) is 

adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s request is granted, and Defendant’s request is denied. 

(ECF No. 17). The Clerk is ordered to enter judgment remanding this action to the 

Commissioner of Social Security Administration under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g) for a new hearing before an administrative law judge for further consideration 

consistent with this opinion.

Dated: August 30, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01649-WQH-MSB Document 19 Filed 08/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2