Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00476/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00476-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0402 Social Security Benefits

---

1

3:19-cv-00476-AJB-RNB

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

AIDA I.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00476-AJB-RNB

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 

No. 25); 

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 21);

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 22).

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and 

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 21–22.) The Court referred 

this matter to Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block for a Report and Recommendation (the 

“R&R”), which was issued on January 28, 2020. (Doc. No. 25.) The Magistrate Judge

recommends “that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be GRANTED, that the 

Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment be DENIED, and that Judgment be 

entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further 

Case 3:19-cv-00476-AJB-RNB Document 26 Filed 04/17/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:19-cv-00476-AJB-RNB

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

administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” (Id. at 12 

(emphasis in original).) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R 

within 14 days of being served with the R&R, and replies within 14 days of being served 

with the objections. (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); 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; 

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

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the 

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

hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. No. 25); (2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment (Doc. No. 21), (3) DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary 

judgment (Doc. No. 22), and (4) REVERSES the decision of Defendant. The Court 

REMANDS the case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 17, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00476-AJB-RNB Document 26 Filed 04/17/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2