1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL O., Case No.: 3:23-cv-01596-BEN-JLB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER: 12 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Acting RECOMMENDATION; Commissioner of the Social Security 14 Administration, 1 (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 15 Defendant. MOTION FOR SUMMARY 16 JUDGMENT; AND

17 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 18 CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 19

20 [Docket Nos. 10, 12, 14] 21 Plaintiff Daniel O. filed this action for judicial review of the Social Security 22 Commissioner’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. ECF No. 1. 23 Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment seeking reversal of the ALJ’s decision. 24 ECF No. 10. Defendant filed a cross motion for summary judgment seeking to uphold 25

26 27 1 Martin O’Malley, the current Acting Commissioner of Social Security, is automatically substituted as the defendant for Kilolo Kijakazi, the former Acting Commissioner of 28 1 ||the ALJ’s determination. ECF No. 12. On July 31, 2024, Magistrate Judge Jill L. 2 || Burkhardt issued a thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court 3 || grant Plaintiff's motion. ECF No. 14 (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Burkhardt found the 4 || ALJ erred by inadequately addressing Plaintiff's physical symptom testimony. R&R at 5 Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by August 15, 2024. 6 || Neither party has filed any objections. 7 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 8 || magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also

|| 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 10 recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 11 || However, a district judge need not review the magistrate judge’s findings de novo if no 12 || objections are made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) 13 banc); see also Wang v. Masaitis,

, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). 14 Here, the Court need not conduct de novo review as neither party made any 15 objection. The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. 16 || Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's motion 17 || for summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is 18 || DENIED. Accordingly, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s final 19 || decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further administrative 20 || proceedings consistent with the findings presented in the Report and Recommendation. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter a final Judgment 22 favor of Plaintiff, and against Defendant, reversing the final decision of the 23 || Commissioner. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 25 || DATED: August 19, 2024 Nlydiees ey, %6 IN. ROGER T. BENIT Z United States District Judge 27 28