1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 VLADIMIR BAVIN, Case No.: 19-cv-779-WQH-JLB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 ANDREW SAUL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 14 Defendant. 15 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 The matters before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by 18 Plaintiff Vladimir Bavin (ECF No. 19), the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by 19 Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) (ECF No. 22), and the 20 Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 26) recommending 21 that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, deny the Commissioner’s 22 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and remand this matter for further administrative 23 proceedings. 24 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 25 magistrate judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28

(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions 27 of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 28 or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”

636(b)(1). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and 2 recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis,

, 1000 3 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) 4 ||(en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 5 ||review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 6 || correct.”’). 7 No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 8 ||reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26) is 10 || adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) is granted. 11 || The Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) is denied. The 12 || Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment reversing the decision of the Commissioner and 13 ||remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of

(g). 15 |} Dated: February 22, 2021 itt Z. A a 16 Hon. William Q. Hayes 7 United States District Court 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28