1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA R., Case No.: 20-cv-1236-MMA (JLB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 [Doc. No. 27] Defendant.1 16 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 17 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 18 [Doc. No. 25] 19 AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER 20 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 21 22 On July 1, 2020, Plaintiff Maria R. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security appeal 23 challenging the denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and 24 25 26 1 Kilolo Kijakazi is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Therefore, pursuant to Federal 27 Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Kilolo Kijakazi is substituted for Andrew Saul as the defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be taken, pursuant to the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social 28 1 Supplemental Security Income benefits. See Doc. No. 1. The Court referred all matters 2 arising in this social security appeal to United States Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt 3 for report and recommendation pursuant to Section 636(b)(1)(B) of Title 28 of the United 4 States Code, and Civil Local Rule 72.1. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); S.D. Cal. CivLR 5 72.1. On August 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. See Doc. 6 No. 25. On September 27, 2021, Defendant filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s 7 motion for summary judgment. See Doc. No. 26. Judge Burkhardt has issued a thorough 8 and well-reasoned Report recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for 9 summary judgment and remand the matter to the Social Security Administration for 10 further administrative proceedings. See Doc. No. 27 (“Report and Recommendation”). 11 Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation. The time for filing objections 12 has expired. 13 The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and 14 recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 15 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a report and recommendation 16 (“R&R”), “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those 17 portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas 18 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need 19 not review the R&R de novo. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 20 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 21 A district judge may nevertheless “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 22 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see 23 also Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006). 24 The Court has made a review and determination in accordance with the 25 requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Upon due consideration, the 26 Court ADOPTS Judge Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation, and GRANTS 27 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this 28 matter to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings 1 consistent with this Court’s Order and Judge Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation. 2 || The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and close the 3 || case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: September 9, 2022 6 Miku! Md - / a tills 7 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28