United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 2025

Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security
United States District Court for the Southern District of California · Decided February 24, 2025
Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TERESA P., Case No.: 24-cv-00100-AJB-DDL Plaintiff, 12 ORDER: v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 14 RECOMMENDATION; SECURITY, 15 Defendant. (2) REMANDING ACTION FOR 16 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (Doc. Nos. 10, 16) 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Teresa P.’s social security appeal. (Doc.

20 No. 10.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 16.) The R&R recommends remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for further administrative action. (Id. at 1, 14.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R no later than February 13, 2025, and replies no later than February 20, 2025. (Id. at 14.)

25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 1 made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, || 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need || only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the ||recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment; see || also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

6 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ||hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Leshner’s R&R, (Doc. No. 16); and ||(2) REMANDS the case back to the Commissioner for further review pursuant to 42 10 U.S.C. § 405(g).

12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated: February 23, 2025 © ¢ 14 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 15 United States District Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.