1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH EDWARD MAYE, Case No.: 19-cv-00110-AJB-RNB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. Social Security, 15 No. 23); Defendant. 16 (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 15); AND 18

19 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 20 JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 18.) 21

22 Presently before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff Kenneth Edward Maye’s (“Plaintiff”) 23 motion for summary judgment; and (2) Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s 24 (“Defendant”) cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 15, 18.) The Court referred 25 this matter to Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block for a Report and Recommendation (the 26 “R&R”), which was issued on September 25, 2019. (Doc. No. 23.) The Magistrate Judge 27 recommends that the Court: (1) grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and (2) 28 deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 10.) The parties were 1 ||instructed to file written objections to the R&R by October 9, 2019 and a reply to the 2 || objections no later than October 23, 2019. (/d.) 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and

(b)(1) set forth a district 4 ||judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 5 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 6 ||and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 7 || made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1); United States v. Remsing,

(Oth Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 9 || satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 10 recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 11 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 12 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the 13 || Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 14 hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; 15 (3) DENIES Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. 16 17 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 || Dated: November 15, 2019 | □□ rz Le 20 Hon. Anthony J.@Battaglia United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28