Ortega v. O'Malley
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Roger T. Benitez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in a Social Security disability case where neither party filed objections. The court adopted the R&R, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and ordered the case remanded for further administrative proceedings.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adopting the Report and Recommendation“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) and Ninth Circuit precedent (United States v. Reyna-Tapia), a district court must conduct a de novo review of any part of the R&R to which a party properly objects. Because neither party filed objections, the court was not required to conduct a de novo review and could accept the recommendation. The court explicitly stated it considered and agreed with the R&R, making the adoption procedurally sound. |
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.” | de novo | agree with court The court granted the motion based on its adoption of the Magistrate Judge's R&R. The R&R found that the ALJ erred by inadequately addressing the plaintiff's physical symptom testimony. In Social Security cases, if the ALJ fails to provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting a claimant's testimony, the decision is not supported by substantial evidence and must be remanded. The court's agreement with this finding supports the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff. |
Denying Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.” | de novo | agree with court The denial of the defendant's cross-motion is the logical corollary to granting the plaintiff's motion. Since the court found the ALJ's decision was flawed due to inadequate handling of symptom testimony, the defendant's request to uphold the ALJ's determination could not be granted. |
Vacating the Commissioner's decision and Remanding the case“the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s final decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with the findings presented in the Report and Recommendation.” | de novo | agree with court Remand is the standard remedy in Social Security cases when the ALJ's decision is found to be legally deficient or unsupported by substantial evidence. The court correctly ordered a remand for further proceedings consistent with the R&R's findings regarding the ALJ's error. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation in the absence of objections. It cites the correct Federal Rules and Ninth Circuit precedent to support its decision to adopt the R&R without de novo review. The substantive decision to grant summary judgment and remand follows logically from the Magistrate Judge's finding that the ALJ erred in handling the plaintiff's symptom testimony, a standard legal error in Social Security cases.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL O., Case No.: 3:23-cv-01596-BEN-JLB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER: 12 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Acting RECOMMENDATION; Commissioner of the Social Security 14 Administration, 1 (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 15 Defendant. MOTION FOR SUMMARY 16 JUDGMENT; AND 17 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 18 CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 19 20 [Docket Nos. 10, 12, 14] 21 Plaintiff Daniel O. filed this action for judicial review of the Social Security 22 Commissioner’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. ECF No. 1. 23 Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment seeking reversal of the ALJ’s decision. 24 ECF No. 10. Defendant filed a cross motion for summary judgment seeking to uphold 25 26 27 1 Martin O’Malley, the current Acting Commissioner of Social Security, is automatically substituted as the defendant for Kilolo Kijakazi, the former Acting Commissioner of 28 1 ||the ALJ’s determination. ECF No. 12. On July 31, 2024, Magistrate Judge Jill L. 2 || Burkhardt issued a thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court 3 || grant Plaintiff's motion. ECF No. 14 (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Burkhardt found the 4 || ALJ erred by inadequately addressing Plaintiff's physical symptom testimony. R&R at 5 Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by August 15, 2024. 6 || Neither party has filed any objections. 7 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 8 || magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 9 || 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 10 recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 11 || However, a district judge need not review the magistrate judge’s findings de novo if no 12 || objections are made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 13 banc); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). 14 Here, the Court need not conduct de novo review as neither party made any 15 objection. The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. 16 || Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's motion 17 || for summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is 18 || DENIED. Accordingly, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s final 19 || decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further administrative 20 || proceedings consistent with the findings presented in the Report and Recommendation. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter a final Judgment 22 favor of Plaintiff, and against Defendant, reversing the final decision of the 23 || Commissioner. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 25 || DATED: August 19, 2024 Nlydiees ey, %6 IN. ROGER T. BENIT Z United States District Judge 27 28