Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01499/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01499-1/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-1499-AJB-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

CAROL C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

1

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-1499-AJB-MSB

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 21); 

AND

(2) REMANDING THE MATTER TO 

THE SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Judicial Review on Plaintiff’s 

request that the Court review the commissioner’s denial of her claim for disability benefits. 

(Doc. No. 20.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg for a 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 10.) The R&R recommends that 

judgment be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding the matter 

for further proceedings before the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four 

of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. No. 21 at 26.) The parties were instructed to file written 

 

1 Andrew M. Saul became Commissioner of Social Security on June 17, 2019 and is therefore 

substituted for Nancy A. Berryhill as Defendant. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

Case 3:18-cv-01499-AJB-MSB Document 22 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-1499-AJB-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

objections to the R&R by February 14, 2020. (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 has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Berg’s R&R. Having reviewed 

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

Accordingly, the Court hereby: ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Berg’s R&R in its entirety, 

(Doc. No. 21), and REMANDS the matter for further proceedings before the Social 

Security Administration. The Court Clerk is instructed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-01499-AJB-MSB Document 22 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2