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
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.