Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICIA H.C.,1 Case No.: 3:25-cv-01980-JES-VET 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of RECOMMENDATION; the Social Security Administration, 15 Defendant. (2) REVERSING DECISION OF THE 16 COMMISSIONER; and 17 (3) REMANDING ACTION FOR 18 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 19 [ECF No. 15, 20] 20 21 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Patricia H.C.’s Motion for Summary Judgment 22 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3). ECF No. 15. Magistrate Judge Valerie 23 Torres issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on the matter, recommending that 24 this Court reverse the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and remanding the 25 26 27 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), “[o]pinions by the Court in [Social Security cases under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)] will refer to any non-government parties by using only their first name and last initial.” 28 1 |}matter back to the Commissioner for further administrative action. affirm the 2 ||Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff benefits. ECF No. 20. The parties were 3 instructed to file written objections to the R&R by August 14, 2026. Jd. at 13. 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 5 ||judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 6 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is made[,]” 7 “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 8 ||made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 9 ||874 F.2d 614, 617 (9" Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need 10 |/only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 11 ||}recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment; see 12 || also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9" Cir. 2003). 13 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court 14 || finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 15 hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Torres’ R&R; (2) REVERSES the decision of the 16 Commissioner denying benefits to Plaintiff; and (3) REMANDS the case back to the 17 ||Commissioner for further review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 50 Dated: August 21, 2026 “4 we Se 4, 21 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 09 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28