Alvarez v. Berryhill
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J.uBattaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) in a Social Security case where neither party filed objections. The court adopted the R&R, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for an unobjected R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent, when no objections are filed, the district judge reviews the R&R for clear error. The court found no clear error, making the adoption procedurally sound. |
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment“(2) DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the magistrate's recommendation to deny the plaintiff's motion. Since the district court found no clear error in the magistrate's analysis, the denial is procedurally supported by the record presented in the order. |
Grant of Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment“(3) GRANTS Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the magistrate's recommendation to grant the defendant's motion. The district court's finding that the R&R contained no clear error supports this outcome under the applicable standard of review for unobjected R&Rs. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R when no objections are filed (clear error). It cites the correct statutory and case law authorities (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), United States v. Remsing, United States v. Reyna-Tapia) to support the conclusion that the R&R should be adopted. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a procedural order adopting an unobjected R&R.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH ALVAREZ, Case No.: 3:17-cv-2236-AJB-NLS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 14 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. Commissioner of the Social Security 15 No. 31); Administration, 16 Defendant. (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 26); AND 18 19 (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY 20 JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 27.) 21 22 Presently before the Court are (1) Plaintiff Keith Alvarez’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for 23 summary judgment; and (2) Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill’s (“Defendant”) cross motion 24 for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 26–27.) The Court referred this matter to Magistrate 25 Judge Nita L. Stormes for a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued 26 on August 6, 2019. (Doc. No. 31.) The R&R recommends that the Court: (1) deny 27 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and (2) grant Defendant’s cross motion for 28 summary judgment. (Id. at 20–21.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to 1 || the R&R by August 21, 2019, and a reply to the objections no later than August 30, 2019. 2 || Ud. at 21.) 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 4 ||judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 5 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 6 ||and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 7 || made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 8 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 9 || satisfy itself that there 1s no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 10 recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 11 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 12 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the 13 || Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 14 ||hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R; (2) DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; 15 (3) GRANTS Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. 16 17 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 |! Dated: September 23, 2019 | □□ rz Le 20 Hon. Anthony J.@Battaglia 2] United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28