Lane v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in a Social Security disability case. The court adopted the R&R, denied the plaintiff's motion, granted the defendant's motion, and ordered judgment for the Commissioner.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 24) 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) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a district court must conduct a de novo review of portions of the R&R to which a party objects. The order notes that no party filed an objection. While the court states it 'reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions,' the legal requirement for de novo review is triggered by objections. In the absence of objections, the court may accept the R&R. The court's action to adopt the R&R is procedurally sound and consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent (e.g., *Wang v. Masaitis*) cited in the order. |
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Remand“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Remand (ECF Nos. 15) is denied.” | unclear | unsure The order does not recite the specific legal reasoning or factual findings supporting the denial of the plaintiff's motion. It relies entirely on the adoption of the Magistrate Judge's R&R. Without the text of the R&R or the specific arguments raised by the plaintiff, it is impossible to determine if the legal application was correct. However, procedurally, the district court is authorized to deny the motion by adopting the R&R. |
Grant of Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment“Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is granted.” | unclear | unsure Similar to the denial of the plaintiff's motion, the order does not state the standard of review for summary judgment (Rule 56) or the specific findings of fact that support granting the Commissioner's motion. It relies on the adopted R&R. The procedural mechanism is correct, but the substantive legal correctness cannot be verified from this order alone. |
Entry of Judgment for Defendant“The Clerk shall enter judgment for Defendant Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff Mary Elizabeth Lane.” | unclear | agree with court This is a standard administrative order following the resolution of the motions. It is procedurally correct. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for the Report and Recommendation (de novo for objections, none here) and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (*Wang*, *Reyna-Tapia*) to support the court's authority to adopt the R&R without a full de novo review of the underlying merits. However, the order is 'sound with gaps' because it provides no substantive reasoning for the underlying summary judgment decisions (denial of plaintiff's motion, grant of defendant's motion). It relies entirely on the adopted R&R. While this is permissible, the order itself does not demonstrate that the law was applied correctly to the facts, only that the procedural mechanism for adopting the magistrate's findings was followed.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MARY ELIZABETH LANE, Case No.: 18-cv-2407-WQH-NLS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 The matters before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment and Remand 18 filed by Plaintiff Mary Elizabeth Lane (ECF Nos. 14, 15), the Cross Motion for Summary 19 Judgment filed by Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (ECF No. 17), and the 20 Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 24) recommending 21 that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Remand and grant 22 Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. 23 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 24 magistrate judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 25 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions 26 of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 27 or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 28 636(b)(1). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and 1 || recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 2 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 3 || (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 4 ||review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 5 || 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. 24) is 9 || adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Remand (ECF Nos. 10 15) is denied. Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is 11 || granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment for Defendant Commissioner of Social Security 12 || and against Plaintiff Mary Elizabeth Lane. 13 |} Dated: February 19, 2020 Nitta Z. A a 14 Hon, William Q. Hayes 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28