1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICIA CRAIG, Case No.: 19cv636 JM (JLB)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION; (2)

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

14 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

Social Security, 15 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S Defendant. CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY 16

JUDGMENT

17 18 Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate 19 Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, filed on August 11, 2020, recommending that the court grant 20 Plaintiff Patricia Craig’s motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant Commissioner’s 21 cross-motion for summary judgment, and remand the case to the Social Security 22 Administration for further proceedings. (Doc. No. 17.) 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 24 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 25 district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report to which 26 objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 27 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United 28 States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 1 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only 2 ||satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 3 ||recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbel v. United 4 || States Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 5 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate 6 || judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”’). 7 Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s 8 || R&R. (See Doc. No. 17 at 46 (objections due by August 25, 2020).) Having reviewed the 9 ||R&R, the court finds that it 1s thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 10 || Accordingly, the court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s report and 11 |/recommendation; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 10); 12 (3) DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 12). This 13 || case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. 14 This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Date: September 10, 2020 (eb — 18 19 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo for 20 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller, United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28