Dixon v. O' Malley

1
24-CV-1839 JLS (MMP)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CARLTON D.,1
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of
Social Security,2
Defendant.
Case No.: 24-CV-1839 JLS (MMP)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
(ECF No. 13)
Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R,” ECF No. 13) advising the Court to reverse the Commissioner
of Social Security’s decision denying Plaintiff Carlton D.’s application for disability
insurance benefits and remand the matter for further administrative proceedings in
connection with Plaintiff’s Social Security Appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). R&R
at 25; see also ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed an opening Brief (ECF No. 9), to which Defendant
filed a Responsive Brief (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff also filed a Reply (ECF No. 11). No Party
1 In accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), the Court refers to all non-government parties by using
their first name and last initial.
2 Frank Bisignano is the current Commissioner of Social Security and is automatically substituted as the
defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
Case 3:24-cv-01839-JLS-MMP Document 14 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
24-CV-1839 JLS (MMP)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
filed objections to the R&R. 	See generally Docket. 	Having considered Judge Pettit’s
R&R, the pleadings and all supporting documents, and the law, the Court ADOPTS Judge
Pettit’s R&R in its entirety.
BACKGROUND
Judge Pettit’s R&R contains an accurate recitation of the relevant background and
evidence. 	See R&R at 2–3. This Order incorporates by reference the background as set
forth therein.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district
court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court must “make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 	28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United
States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely
objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s
note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).
ANALYSIS
No Party objects to the R&R. 	See generally Docket. The Court therefore reviews
the R&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its
entirety.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:24-cv-01839-JLS-MMP Document 14 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
24-CV-1839 JLS (MMP)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court (1) APPROVES and ADOPTS the R&R (ECF
No. 13); (2) REVERSES the Commissioner’s decision; and (3) REMANDS the matter
for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R. 	As this concludes the
litigation in this matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-01839-JLS-MMP Document 14 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3