ORDER

CARLOS E. MENDOZA, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Second Amended Motion for Partial Dismissal, or in the Alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 19). United States Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24), recommending that partial summary judgment be granted in Defendant's favor as to Plaintiff's Appointments Clause challenge and that the Motion be denied in all other respects.

Plaintiff filed an Objection (Doc. 25) to the Report and Recommendation.1 Therein, Plaintiff argues that he was not required to raise his Appointments Clause challenge in his prior administrative proceedings under Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000). The Court disagrees. Sims stands for the proposition that a claimant "need not exhaust issues in request for review by the Appeals Council in order to preserve judicial review of those issues." 530 U.S. at 112. As Judge Kelly noted, however, the issue in this case is whether Plaintiff was required to raise his Appointments Clause challenge at some point during his administrative proceedings to preserve judicial review of the issue, and the Court finds that Plaintiff was required to do so. See Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2017) (issue must be raised before the ALJ or the Appeals Council).

After a de novo review, the Court agrees with the analysis in the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

DONE and ORDERED.