1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 HIPOLITO DE LA ROSA DE LA Case No.: 18-cv-1649-WQH-MSB ROSA, 11 ORDER Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 ANDREW SAUL, 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 Michael S. Berg (ECF No. 18), pursuant to Plaintiff and 19 Defendant’s joint motion for judicial review (EFC No. 17), recommending that Plaintiff’s 20 request for reversal of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration’s decision and 21 remand be granted and Defendant’s request be denied. 22 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 23 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and

636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 25 report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 26 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”

(b). The 27 district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 28 1 || which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis,

, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2 ||2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 3 (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 4 ||review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 5 || 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. 18) is 9 || adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's request is granted, and Defendant’s request is denied. 10 ||(ECF No. 17). The Clerk is ordered to enter judgment remanding this action to the 11 |}Commissioner of Social Security Administration under Sentence Four of

||405(g) for a new hearing before an administrative law judge for further consideration 13 consistent with this opinion. 14 |} Dated: August 30, 2019 Nitta Z. Ma 15 Hon, William Q. Hayes 16 United States District Court 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28