Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02407/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02407-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405rs Review of HHS Decision (RSI)

---

1

18-cv-2407-WQH-NLS

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

MARY ELIZABETH LANE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-2407-WQH-NLS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment and Remand 

filed by Plaintiff Mary Elizabeth Lane (ECF Nos. 14, 15), the Cross Motion for Summary 

Judgment filed by Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (ECF No. 17), and the 

Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 24) recommending 

that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Remand and grant 

Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 

magistrate judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b). 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and 

Case 3:18-cv-02407-WQH-NLS Document 25 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-2407-WQH-NLS

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

recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 

n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 

review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 

correct.”).

No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 

reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 24) is 

adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Remand (ECF Nos. 

14, 15) is denied. Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is 

granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment for Defendant Commissioner of Social Security 

and against Plaintiff Mary Elizabeth Lane.

Dated: February 19, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-02407-WQH-NLS Document 25 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2