Silva v. Commissioner of Social Security

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JULIO S., Case No.: 23-cv-02324-AJB-DEB 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. 17, 18) 19 Presently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Judicial Review of Plaintiff Julio S.’s (“Plaintiff”) request that the Court review the Commissioner’s denial of his claim for disability benefits. (Doc. No. 17.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 18.) The R&R recommends granting Plaintiff’s request for remand, remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for further proceedings, and entering judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. (Id. at 13.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R no later than February 18, 2025, and replies no later than February 25, 2025. (Id.) 27 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 1 de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 2 “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations ||made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 4 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 7 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

8 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 Butcher’s R&R, (Doc. No. 18); (2) GRANTS 11 Plaintiff's request for remand, (Doc. No. 17); and (3) REMANDS the case back to the ||Commissioner for further review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

14 IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 Dated: February 26, 2025 © 16 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 17 United States District Judge