Williams-McGloster v. Berryhill
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation recommending the grant of the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and the denial of the Commissioner's Cross-Motion. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, reversing the Commissioner's decision 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. 21) 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), a district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made. The order notes that no party filed an objection. While the court states it will make a de novo determination, it also correctly notes that it need not review de novo portions to which no objection is made, citing Wang v. Masaitis and United States v. Reyna-Tapia. By adopting the R&R in its entirety without objections, the court followed the correct procedural path. |
Granting of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED.” | de novo | agree with court The court granted the motion by adopting the Magistrate's recommendation. The order does not recite the specific factual or legal findings of the Magistrate regarding the Social Security claim, but the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R is valid. The standard of review for the underlying summary judgment in a Social Security case is typically de novo review of the administrative record to determine if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. The court's adoption of the R&R implies acceptance of the Magistrate's application of this standard. |
Denial of Commissioner's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment“the Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.” | de novo | agree with court The court denied the cross-motion by adopting the Magistrate's recommendation. This is a logical consequence of granting the Plaintiff's motion and reversing the Commissioner's decision. The court's procedural handling is correct. |
Reversal of Commissioner's Decision and Remand“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” | de novo | agree with court The court ordered a remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This is the correct statutory provision for remanding a Social Security case for further administrative proceedings when the court finds the decision not supported by substantial evidence or otherwise legally deficient. The court's order is consistent with the recommendation to reverse and remand. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation, cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for the proposition that de novo review is not required for unobjected portions, and correctly adopts the R&R and enters judgment reversing and remanding under the correct statutory provision. The order is brief but sufficient for a procedural adoption of an R&R where no objections were filed.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SHANEENA WILLIAMS- Case No.: 18cv1661-WQH-RNB MCGLOSTER, 11 ORDER Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 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 Robert N. Block (ECF No. 21), recommending that 19 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) be granted, the Commissioner’s 20 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) be denied, and that Judgment be 21 entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further 22 administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 23 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 24 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 25 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 26 report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 27 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 28 1 || district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 2 || which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); 3 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the 4 || Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 5 || findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). 6 No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 7 reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the Parties. 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) is 9 ||adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) is 10 ||} GRANTED. the Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is 11 || DENIED. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the 13 ||Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant 14 || to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 15 |} Dated: September 25, 2019 itt Z. A a 16 Hon. William Q. Hayes 7 United States District Court 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28