Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01321/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01321-1/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

19cv1321-CAB-RBB

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

TERESA P.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv1321-CAB-RBB

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc.

No. 14]; (2) GRANTING IN PART 

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 

10]; (3) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 12]; and (4) 

REMANDING FOR FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks, filed on February 27, 2020, recommending that the 

Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff Teresa P.’s motion for summary judgment, 

grant in part and deny in part Defendant Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, 

and remand for further proceedings. [Doc. No. 14.] 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 

Case 3:19-cv-01321-CAB-RBB Document 15 Filed 04/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv1321-CAB-RBB

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

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion 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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also 

United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 

F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court 

“need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 

accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Cvi.P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 

Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[T]he district judge must review the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 

otherwise.”).

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Brooks’ R&R. 

[See Doc. No. 14 at 27 (objections due by March 20, 2020).] Having reviewed the R&R, 

the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Brooks’ report and 

recommendation; (2) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion 

for summary judgment; (3) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s 

cross-motion for summary judgment; and (4) REMANDS the case for further 

proceedings.

This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01321-CAB-RBB Document 15 Filed 04/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2