| | me 9% | AUG 26 2019 | 3 SOUTHESN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | BY DEPUTY | 4 □□□□ 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 .

8 || MARIA LUISA BARRETO, Case No.: 3:18-cv-00755-BEN-AGS Plaintiff, ? ORDER: 10 || Vv. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 11 || NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting RECOMMENDATION; Commissioner of Social Security, (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S | B Defendant.| MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; . 14 5 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 16 JUDGMENT; and M7 (4) REMANDING CASE FOR 18 . FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 19 Plaintiff Maria Luisa Barreto filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social 20 || Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and 21 supplemental security income benefits. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, 22 || and Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to 23 || Plaintiff's motion. 24 On August 8, 2019, the Honorable Andrew G. Schopler issued a thoughtful and 25 ||thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff's 26 || motion, deny Defendant’s cross-motion, and remand the case for further proceedings. 27 || See Garrison v. Colvin,

(9th Cir. 2014) (holding that when “the 28 || record as a whole creates serious doubt as to whether the claimant is, in fact, disabled,”

1 court should remand for further proceedings). In this case, the Report and 2 || Recommendation note that while the record is fully developed, the ALJ committed 3 || procedural error because the vocational expert never addressed the effect of Maria’s 4 color-vision limitation on her ability to find work. “In cases where the testimony of the 5 || vocational expert has failed to address a claimant’s limitations as established by 6 ||improperly discredited evidence, we consistently have remanded for further proceedings 7 ||rather than payment of benefits.” Harman v. Apfel,

(9th Cir. 2000). 8 || Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due August 22, 2019. Neither party 9 || has filed any objections. 10 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 11 || magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 12 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 13 ||recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b}(3). 14 || However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 15 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 16 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also 17 || Wang v. Masaitis,

, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 18 ||the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 19 the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia,

. 20 The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 21 ||Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 24). Plaintiff's motion for 22 ||summary judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 15). Defendant’s cross-motion for 23 ||summary judgment is DENIED. (Doc. No. 21). The case is REMANDED for further 24 || proceedings. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 || A Ly f 27 Dated: Aves, 2019 Ligier, MA /fuon. Roger’. Benitez 28 Unitéd States District Judge