Salazar v. O'Malley
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in a Social Security disability case where no party filed objections. The court adopted the R&R in its entirety, reversing the Commissioner's decision in part and remanding the case for further administrative proceedings.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) is adopted in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), a district court must make a de novo determination of portions of the report to which objection is made. While the court noted that no objections were filed (which typically allows for a clear error review), the court stated it reviewed the R&R and record, and adopted it. Adopting an R&R without objections is a standard and legally sound procedure. |
Reversal of Commissioner's Decision and Remand“The Court reverses the Commissioner’s final decision and remands further administrative proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.” | substantial evidence | agree with court The order does not recite the specific factual or legal errors in the Commissioner's decision, relying instead on the Magistrate's R&R. However, in the context of adopting an R&R in a Social Security case, the district court is bound by the legal conclusions of the R&R if they are correct. Since the order explicitly adopts the R&R which recommended reversal, the ruling follows logically from the adoption. The standard of review for the underlying Social Security decision is substantial evidence, though not explicitly stated in this short order, it is the governing standard for 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) cases. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for a Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b). It correctly notes the absence of objections and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Wang and Reyna-Tapia) to support the court's discretion in reviewing the R&R. The court explicitly states it reviewed the record and submissions before adopting the R&R. The order is concise but contains all necessary elements for a valid adoption order in this context.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS S., Case No.: 24-cv-1432-WQH-BLM Plaintiff, 12 ORDER v. 13 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation issued 18 by United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major, recommending that the 19 Commissioner’s decision be reversed in part and that the case be remanded for further 20 proceedings. (ECF No. 13 at 1.) 21 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 22 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. 23 § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 24 report … to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 25 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 26 The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation 27 to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 28 1 ||2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 2 ||(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 3 ||review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 4 || correct.”). 5 No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 6 || reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) is 8 || adopted in its entirety. The Court reverses the Commissioner’s final decision and remands 9 further administrative proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. 10 || The Clerk of Court is ordered to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, 11 |/reversing the decision of the Commissioner in part and remanding the matter for further 12 ||administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 13 14 || Dated: July 10, 2025 Nitta Z. Ma 15 Hon, William Q. Hayes 16 United States District Court 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28