1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACQUELINE C., on behalf of JL, a Case No.: 3:24-cv-1032-RBM-KSC minor 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION 14 (2) VACATING FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of 15 COMMISSIONER’S Social Security1 DECISION; and 16 Defendant. (3) REMANDING FOR FURTHER 17 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 18

19 [Docs. 12–13] 20

21 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge 22 Karen S. Crawford, filed on June 10, 2025 (Doc. 27), on the parties’ briefing (Docs. 21, 23 25–26). The R&R recommends the Court vacate the final decision of the Commissioner 24 and remand for further proceedings. (Doc. 27.) The deadline for filing objections to the 25 26 27 1 Frank Bisignano is now the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration and is 28 1 ||R&R was no later than June 24, 2025.

(b) (objections due 14 days after 2 ||recommendation issued); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (objections to findings and 3 ||recommendations on dispositive motions due within 10 days). No objections have been 4 || filed. 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and

(b)(1) set forth a district 6 ||court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 7 || district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that 8 been properly objected to” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 9 || findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 10 || U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz,

(1980); United 11 || States v. Remsing,

(9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely 12 || objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 13 |/record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s 14 || note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court,

(9th Cir. 1974)); see also 15 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge 16 || must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is 17 || made, but not otherwise.”) (emphasis in original). 18 Here, neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Crawford’s R&R. 19 || Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains 20 ||no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Crawford’s 21 ||R&R (Doc. 27); (2) VACATES the Commissioner’s decision; and (3) REMANDS this 22 ||matter with instructions to reevaluate the evidence of record. The Clerk shall enter 23 judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: July 14, 2025 Fe Le ; ? L é > 76 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28