Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
25-cv-00320-DMS-JLB
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
DELILAH P.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-cv-00320-DMS-JLB
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
[ECF No. 17]
On February 25, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt filed a
Report and Recommendation for an order granting Plaintiff’s merits brief, (see ECF No.
12), reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, (see Admin. R., ECF
No. 6, at 17–28)1, and remanding the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative
proceedings. (R. & R., ECF No. 17, at 22.)2 The parties had fourteen (14) days to file
objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Id.) No party filed an objection.
The district court reviewing a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security may
enter a “judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing” the Commissioner’s decision. 42
1 Citations to page numbers correspond to the Administrative Record’s pagination.
2 Delilah P. v. Bisignano, No. 25-CV-00320-DMS-JLB, 2026 WL 539342 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2026).
Case 3:25-cv-00320-DMS-JLB Document 19 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
25-cv-00320-DMS-JLB
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
U.S.C. § 405(g). “[R]emand is proper where additional administrative proceedings could
remedy defects” in the decision. Kail v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1496, 1497 (9th Cir. 1984).
“The district judge must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . .
to which objection is made,’ and ‘may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.’” Campuzano v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., No. 20-CV-721-WQH-WVG, 2021 WL 3848164, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2021)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). However, the district judge need not review de novo
those portions of a report and recommendation to which neither party objects. See United
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the
Constitution nor the [Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings
and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). The Court has
reviewed the record, parties’ briefing, and Report and Recommendation. The Court finds
the Report and Recommendation to be correct, well-reasoned, and thorough, and thus
adopts it in every respect.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s merits brief; REVERSES the decision
of the Administrative Law Judge dated December 27, 2024 denying Plaintiff’s applications
for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, (Admin. R. 17–28),
which became final on January 17, 2025 upon the Appeals Council’s denial of review, (id.
at 1–6); and REMANDS this matter to the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
for further administrative action consistent with the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2026
________________________________
Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00320-DMS-JLB Document 19 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2