1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAMMY A.,1 Case No.: 24-cv-1452-CAB (MSB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 21] 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16

17 On August 15, 2024, Plaintiff Tammy A. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint pursuant to 18

(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s 19 (“Commissioner”) final adverse decision. [Doc. No. 1.] On December 18,2024, Plaintiff 20 filed their opening brief, claiming the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred when he 21 denied Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits. [Doc. No. 12.] On February 22 18, 2025, the Commissioner filed an opposition. [Doc. No. 17.] On March 10, 2025, 23 Plaintiff filed a reply. [Doc. No. 20.] On June 13, 2025, Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg 24 issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Court enter a 25 26

27 1Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), “[o]pinions by the Court in [Social Security cases under 42 U.S.C. 28 1 judgment that reverses the decision of the Commissioner and remands the matter for further 2 administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of

(g). [Doc. No. 21.] 3 The Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed by July 11, 2025. [Report at 4 21.] To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time 5 in which to file an objection. 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and

(b)(1) set forth a district 7 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 8 district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report to which 9 objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 10 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1); see also United 11 States v. Raddatz,

(1980); United States v. Remsing,

, 12 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only 13 satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 14 recommendation.” Fed .R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbel v. U.S. 15 Dist. Court,

(9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

(9th Cir. 2003)(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s 17 findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”) 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Berg’s Report. 2 ||[See Doc. No. 21 at 21 (objections due by July 11, 2025).] Having reviewed the Report, 3 || the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, 4 Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Berg’s report and recommendation [Doc. 5 21]; (2) REVERSES the Commissioner’s decision; and (3) REMANDS this matter 6 || for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of

(g). 7 8 It is SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: July 21, 2025 € 11 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28