1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY K., Case No.: 18-cv-1859-AJB-RBM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 1 RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 28); 15 Defendant. (2) GRANTING IN PART AND 16 DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 17 CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 22); 18

19 (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 20 MOTION FOR SUMMARY 21 JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 15); AND

22 (4) REMANDING THE MATTER TO 23 THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 24

25 / / / 26

27 1 Andrew M. Saul became Commissioner of Social Security on June 17, 2019 and is therefore 28 1 Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s request that 2 the Court review the commissioner’s denial of his claim for disability benefits. (Doc. Nos. 3 15, 22.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro for 4 a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 3.) The R&R recommends (1) granting 5 in part and denying in part defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 6 22); (2) granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, 7 (Doc. No. 15); and (3) remanding the matter for further proceedings before the Social 8 Security Administration, so that the Administrative Law Judge may address Dr. 9 Bilezikjian’s additional exertional and postural limitations, and accurately classify 10 Plaintiff’s prior work. (Doc. No. 28 at 16.) The parties were instructed to file written 11 objections to the R&R by November 13, 2019. (Id.) 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and

(b)(1) set forth a district 13 judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 14 a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 15 and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 16 made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 17

(9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need 18 only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 19 recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 20 see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Montenegro’s R&R. Having 2 reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 3 || Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Montenegro’s R&R, 4 ||(Doc. No. 28); (2) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s cross- 5 ||motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 22); (3) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES 6 ||IN PART Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 15); and REMANDS the 7 matter for further proceedings before the Social Security Administration. The Court Clerk 8 instructed to close the case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 |! Dated: January 3, 2020 | ZS iz : LE Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28