Austin v. Berryhill ( 2020 )

1 2 □ 3 4 > 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 10 11 |} DEBRA FRANKLIN AUSTIN, Case No.: 19cv604 JM (WVG) Plaintitt, | ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 || V. AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) □ 14 oe a Bomiconcth || om arnee 15 JUDGMENT; AND (3) GRANTING 16 Defendant.| IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 17 18 Le Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate 20 || Judge William V. Gallo, filed on July 28, 2020, recommending that the court grant-in-part 21 ||and deny-in-part Plaintiff Debra Franklin Austin’s motion for summary judgment, grant- 22 |lin-part and deny-in-part Defendant Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and 23 ||remanding the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. (Doc. 24 || No. 23.) 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 26 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 27 || district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which 28 || objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 1 |}recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United 2 || States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614; 3 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only 4 satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 5 recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Bimabel v. United 6 || States Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 7 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“{T]he district judge must review the magistrate 8 || judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 9 Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R. 10 Doc. No. 23 at 91 (objections due by August 14, 2020).) Having reviewed the R&R, 11 ||the court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, 12 ||the court hieheby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gallo’s report and recommendation; 13 ||(2) GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Plaintiffs motion for summary 14 ||judgment; and (3) GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Defendant’s cross- 15 ||motion for summary judgment. This case is REMANDED to the Social Security 16 || Administration for further proceedings. 17 This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: August 26, 2020 20 for . ies ane 22 23 24 25 26 27 28