1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL M., Case No.: 3:23-cv-01138-RBM-AHG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of (2) REVERSING THE ALJ’S Social Security1 15 DECISION and Defendant. (3) REMANDING FOR FURTHER 16 ADMINISTRATIVE 17 PROCEEDINGS

18 [Docs. 12–13] 19 20 21 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge 22 Allison H. Goddard, filed on August 2, 2024, (Doc. 13) on the parties’ Joint Motion to 23 Judicial Review (Doc. 12). The R&R recommends the Court reverse the decision of the 24 Commissioner and remand for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 13.) The deadline 25 26 27 1 Martin O’Malley is now the Commissioner of Social Security, and he is automatically 28 1 || for filing objections to the R&R, August 16, 2024 (id. at 28) has passed and neither party 2 filed any objections. 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and

(b)(1) set forth a district 4 ||court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 5 || district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that 6 || has been properly objected to” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 7 || findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28

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

(1980); United 9 || States v. Remsing,

(9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely 10 || objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 11 |/record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s 12 (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court,

(9th Cir. 1974)); see also 13 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge 14 || must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is 15 || made, but not otherwise.) (emphasis in original). 16 Here, neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Goddard’s R&R. 17 || Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains 18 |/no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Goddard’s 19 R&R on the parties’ Joint Motion for Judicial Review (Doc. Nos. 13 (R&R), 12 (Joint 20 || Motion for Judicial Review)); (2) REVERSES the Commissioner’s decision; and (3) 21 |} REMANDS this matter for further administrative proceedings. The Clerk shall close the 22 || file. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: August 19, 2024 Fe Bo Gs ? L > 25 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28