1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD F.S., Case No.: 3:23-cv-00812-RBM-SBC

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

18 [Docs. 12, 19] 19 20 21 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge 22 Steven B. Chu, filed on August 9, 2024, (Doc. 19) on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 23 Judgment (Doc. 12). The R&R recommends the Court vacate the decision of the 24 Commissioner and remand for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 19.) The deadline 25 for filing objections to the R&R, August 23, 2024 (Doc. 19 at 18) has passed and neither 26 party has filed any objections. 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and

(b)(1) set forth a district 28 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The | district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that 2 || has been properly objected to” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 3 || findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 4 ||U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz,

(1980); United 5 || States v. Remsing,

(9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely 6 || objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 7 ||record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s 8 ||note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court,

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

(9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge 10 || must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is 11 made, but not otherwise.) (emphasis in original). 12 Here, neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Chu’s R&R. Having 13 ||reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear 14 ||error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Chu’s R&R on the 15 || Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 19 (R&R), 12 (Plaintiff's Motion for 16 ||Summary Judgment)); (2) VACATES the Commissioner’s decision; and (3) REMANDS 17 || this matter for further administrative proceedings. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter 18 judgment accordingly and close the case. 19 IT ISSO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: August 26, 2024 Fe Ba Gs ? L □ a1 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28