Copenhaver v. Berryhill
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (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, granted in part the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied the defendant's cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
| 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 court reviews the R&R for clear error. The court found no clear error, making adoption appropriate. |
Granting in part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment“(2) GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment” | de novo | unsure The court adopted the magistrate's recommendation to grant the motion in part. Since the order does not specify which parts were granted or the underlying legal reasoning beyond the R&R's general 'thorough, well-reasoned' description, the specific application of summary judgment standards (Rule 56) is not detailed in this order. However, the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R is correct. |
Denying Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment“(3) DENIES Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment” | de novo | unsure Similar to the plaintiff's motion, the court adopted the magistrate's recommendation to deny the defendant's cross-motion. The specific legal basis for the denial is contained in the R&R, which the court found free of clear error. The procedural handling is correct. |
Remand for Further Proceedings“The Court REMANDS the case for further proceedings.” | de novo | agree with court Remand is the standard remedy in Social Security cases where the ALJ's decision is found to be legally insufficient or unsupported by substantial evidence. The court's decision to remand follows from the partial grant of the plaintiff's motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for an unobjected R&R (clear error) and cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Reyna-Tapia). It explicitly states that no objections were filed and that the court reviewed the R&R for clear error. The order is concise and follows the standard format for adopting an R&R in the Ninth Circuit.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAURA C., Case No.: 18-cv-00790-AJB-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 14 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. Commissioner of Social Security, 15 No. 24); Defendant. 16 (2) GRANTING IN PART 17 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 18 21); 19 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 20 CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 21 JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 22.); AND 22 (4) REMANDING FOR FURTHER 23 PROCEEDINGS 24 25 26 Presently before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff Laura Joyce Copenhaver’s (“Plaintiff”) 27 motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 21); and (2) Defendant Commissioner of Social 28 Security’s (“Defendant”) cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 22). The Court 1 |/referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin for a Report and 2 || Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued on January 2, 2020. (Doc. No. 24.) The 3 ||Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court: (1) grant in part Plaintiff's motion for 4 ||summary judgment; and (2) deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (/d. at 5 ||2.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by January 17, 2020 6 a reply to the objections no later than January 24, 2020. Ud.) 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 8 ||judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 9 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]’’ 10 || and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 11 ||made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 12 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 13 satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 14 || recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 15 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 16 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the 17 || Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 18 ||hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R; (2) GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for summary 19 || judgment; and (3) DENIES Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. The Court 20 || REMANDS the case for further proceedings. 21 22 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: February 3, 2020 | ZS Zz : Le 24 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28