Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00614/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00614-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision (regarding payment of benefits)

---

1

17-cv-0614-AJB-KSC

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

Aaron Theodore Nelson,

Plaintiff,

v.

Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-cv-0614-AJB-KSC

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 19);

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 

(Doc. No. 13);

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 14); and

(4) REMANDING THE MATTER 

BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER.

Presently before the Court is plaintiff’s social security appeal. (Doc. No. 1.) The 

Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford for a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 19.) The R&R recommends: (1) granting plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment to the extent plaintiff seeks remand; (2) denying defendant’s 

cross-motion; and (3) remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for further review. 

(Id. at 25.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by February 

Case 3:17-cv-00614-AJB-KSC Document 20 Filed 04/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17-cv-0614-AJB-KSC

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

22, 2018. (Id.)

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

judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. 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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 

874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), 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. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 

see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Neither party filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court 

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

hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Crawford’s R&R, (Doc. No. 19); (2) GRANTS 

plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 13); (3) DENIES defendant’s crossmotion, (Doc. No. 14); and (4) REMANDS the case back to the commissioner for further 

review in accordance with the R&R.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00614-AJB-KSC Document 20 Filed 04/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2