1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAURA C., Case No.: 18-cv-00790-AJB-MDD

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 14 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. Commissioner of Social Security, 15 No. 24); Defendant. 16 (2) GRANTING IN PART 17 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 18 21); 19 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 20 CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 21 JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 22.); AND

22 (4) REMANDING FOR FURTHER 23 PROCEEDINGS 24

25 26 Presently before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff Laura Joyce Copenhaver’s (“Plaintiff”) 27 motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 21); and (2) Defendant Commissioner of Social 28 Security’s (“Defendant”) cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 22). The Court 1 |/referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin for a Report and 2 || Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued on January 2, 2020. (Doc. No. 24.) The 3 ||Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court: (1) grant in part Plaintiff's motion for 4 ||summary judgment; and (2) deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (/d. at 5 ||2.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by January 17, 2020 6 a reply to the objections no later than January 24, 2020. Ud.) 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and

(b)(1) set forth a district 8 ||judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 9 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]’’ 10 || and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 11 ||made by the magistrate judge.”

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

(9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 13 satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 14 || recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 15 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 16 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the 17 || Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 18 ||hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R; (2) GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for summary 19 || judgment; and (3) DENIES Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. The Court 20 || REMANDS the case for further proceedings. 21 22 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: February 3, 2020 | ZS Zz : Le 24 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28