1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AIDA I., Case No.: 3:19-cv-00476-AJB-RNB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. Social Security, 15 No. 25); Defendant. 16 (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 21); 18

19 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 20 JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 22). 21

22 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and 23 Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 21–22.) The Court referred 24 this matter to Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block for a Report and Recommendation (the 25 “R&R”), which was issued on January 28, 2020. (Doc. No. 25.) The Magistrate Judge 26 recommends “that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be GRANTED, that the 27 Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment be DENIED, and that Judgment be 28 entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further 1 || administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of

(g).” Ud. at 12 2 (emphasis in original).) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R 3 || within 14 days of being served with the R&R, and replies within 14 days of being served 4 || with the objections. (/d.) 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and

(b)(1) set forth a district 6 || judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 7 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 8 “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 9 || made by the magistrate judge.”

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

||614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 11 ||satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 12 || recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 13 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 14 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the 15 || Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 16 ||hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. No. 25); (2) GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for 17 |}summary judgment (Doc. No. 21), (3) DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary 18 ||/judgment (Doc. No. 22), and (4) REVERSES the decision of Defendant. The Court 19 || REMANDS the case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of

|| 405(g). 21 22 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 23 24 ||Dated: April 17, 2020 C ) 7 □ 25 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 26 United States District Judge 27 28