Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02108/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02108-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

17cv2108-CAB-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

KAREN MADELINE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv2108-CAB-RNB

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc.

No. 26]; (2) GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 

17]; (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 20] and (4) 

REMANDING FOR FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS

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

Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block, filed on November 20, 2018, recommending that the 

Court grant Plaintiff Karen Madeline Smith’s motion for summary judgment, deny 

Defendant Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and remand for further 

administrative proceedings. [Doc. No. 26.] 

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 

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 

Case 3:17-cv-02108-CAB-RNB Document 27 Filed 12/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv2108-CAB-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

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 Block’s R&R. 

[See Doc. No. 26 at 10 (objections due by December 3, 2018).] 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 Block’s report and 

recommendation; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; (3) DENIES

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and (4) REMANDS this matter for 

further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g).

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02108-CAB-RNB Document 27 Filed 12/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2