1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANGELA H., Case No.: 24-cv-2223-WQH-MMP

Plaintiff, 8 ORDER v. 9 10 MICHELLE KING, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 11 SECURITY,1 12 Defendant. 13 HAYES, Judge: 14 The matters before the Court are the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 15 filed by Plaintiff Angela H. (“Plaintiff”) (ECF No. 3) and the Report and Recommendation 16 issued by Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit (ECF No. 8). 17 On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking judicial review of a 18 Commissioner of Social Security decision denying Disability Insurance Benefits and 19 Supplemental Security Income. (ECF No. 1.) On that same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion for 20 Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) 21 On December 30, 2024, Judge Pettit issued a Report and Recommendation 22 recommending that this Court deny without prejudice the Motion for Leave to Proceed In 23 Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 8.) Judge Pettit ordered that any objection to the Report and 24 Recommendation must be filed by January 13, 2025. Id. at 4. 25 26

27 1 On January 20, 2025, Michelle King became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. She is 28 l The docket reflects that no party filed an objection to the Report and 2 || Recommendation. 3 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 4 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. 5 || § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 6 report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 7 || part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”

(b)(1). The 8 || district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to 9 || which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis,

, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); 10 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the 11 || Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 12 || findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). 13 No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 14 || reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submission of the parties. 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) is 16 || adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF 17 || No. 3) is denied without prejudice. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within twenty-one (21) days from the date this 19 |/Order is entered, Plaintiff must either (1) pay the $405 filing fee or (2) file a renewed 20 || motion to proceed in forma pauperis providing full and accurate information, including her 21 || expenses. Ifneither the filing fee is paid nor a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis 22 |\is filed within that time, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to close this case. 23 ||Dated: February 3, 2025 itt Z. Maa 24 Hon. William Q. Hayes 5 United States District Court 26 27 28