Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00033/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00033-1/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

18cv33-LAB (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

AURORA HICKMAN ,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv33-LAB (RNB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND 

ORDER REVERSING THE 

DECISION OF THE 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

AND REMANDING FOR 

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff Aurora Hickman filed her complaint, seeking review of denial of 

social security disability benefits. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge 

Robert N. Block for report and recommendation. After receiving briefing, on 

August 15, Judge Block issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R”). It 

found that the administrative law judge had erred in denying benefits, and 

recommended reversing that judge’s decision and remanding for further 

proceedings.

The deadline for objecting to the R&R has passed, and no objections were 

filed. A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and 

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge 

Case 3:18-cv-00033-LAB-RNB Document 20 Filed 09/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv33-LAB (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

must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has 

been properly objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court 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). This section does not require some lesser review by 

the district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–

50 (1985). The “statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the 

magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, 

but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

The Court has reviewed the R&R, finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendant’s crossmotion is DENIED. The administrative law judge’s decision is REVERSED and 

this case is REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g) to address and correct the errors the R&R has identified.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00033-LAB-RNB Document 20 Filed 09/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2