Pacheco v. Berryhill

Filing 17

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Remand; granting 12 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting re 15 Report and Recommendation. The Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Block's R&R, (Doc. No. 15); (2) GRANTS Defendant's summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 12); and (3) DENIES Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 10). The Court Clerk is instructed to close the case. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 1/31/2019. (acc) (sjt).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Teresa Pacheco,

Case No.: 18-cv-0502-AJB-MSB
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER:

v.
Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,

15
16

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 15);

Defendant.

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 12); and

17
18

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR REMAND (Doc. No.
10)

19
20
21

Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s request that

22

the Court review the commissioner’s denial of her claim for social security benefits.

23

(Doc. No. 1.) Although Plaintiff styled her motion as a motion for remand, it is essentially

24

a summary judgment motion and is referred to as such in the R&R. (Doc. No. 15 at 1 fn.1.)

25

The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Block for a Report and Recommendation

26

(“R&R”). (Doc. Nos. 6, 14.) The R&R recommends (1) granting defendant’s motion for

27

summary judgment, (Doc. No. 12), and (2) denying plaintiff’s motion, (Doc. No. 10). The

28

parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R within fourteen days of being
1
18-cv-0502-AJB-MSB

1

served with a copy of the R&R. (Doc. No. 15 at 7.)

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district

3

judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make

4

a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]”

5

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

6

made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing,

7

874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need

8

only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

9

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment;

10

see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

11

Neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Block’s R&R. Having

12

reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error.

13

Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Block’s R&R,

14

(Doc. No. 15); (2) GRANTS Defendant’s summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 12); and

15

(3) DENIES Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 10). The Court Clerk is

16

instructed to close the case.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 31, 2019

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
18-cv-0502-AJB-MSB