Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00223/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00223-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0423 Social Security Act (Disability Insurance Benefit Payments)

---

1

18-cv-223-WQH-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

MARY ELAINE ZARATE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-223-WQH-JLB

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

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

by United States Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt (ECF No. 25) recommending that the 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 12) be granted and the Defendant’s 

cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) 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 

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 

Case 3:18-cv-00223-WQH-JLB Document 26 Filed 02/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-223-WQH-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

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. 25) is 

adopted in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 12) is granted and the Defendant’s cross-motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 16) is denied. The Clerk is ordered to enter judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff and against Defendant vacating the decision of the Commissioner and remanding 

the matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g).

Dated: February 25, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00223-WQH-JLB Document 26 Filed 02/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2