Williams-McGloster v. Berryhill

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SHANEENA WILLIAMS- Case No.: 18cv1661-WQH-RNB MCGLOSTER, 11 ORDER Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 14 Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation issued 18 by United States Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block (ECF No. 21), recommending that 19 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) be granted, the Commissioner’s 20 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) be denied, and that Judgment be 21 entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further 22 administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 23 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 24 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 25 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 26 report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 27 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 28 1 || district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 2 || which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); 3 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the 4 || Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 5 || findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). 6 No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 7 reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the Parties. 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) is 9 ||adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) is 10 ||} GRANTED. the Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is 11 || DENIED. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the 13 ||Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant 14 || to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 15 |} Dated: September 25, 2019 itt Z. A a 16 Hon. William Q. Hayes 7 United States District Court 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28