Finkel v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a joint motion for judicial review of a Social Security decision and a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending reversal and remand. The court adopted the R&R, reversed the Commissioner's decision, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), when no objections are filed, the district judge reviews the R&R for clear error. The court explicitly stated it reviewed the R&R and found no clear error, which is the correct procedural posture. |
Reversal of the Commissioner's decision and remand for further proceedings“REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner. Court REMANDS the case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to reverse and remand. Since the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Doc. No. 20) is not provided in the text, the specific legal merits of the Social Security decision cannot be independently verified. However, the district court's action to adopt the R&R and issue the corresponding judgment is procedurally correct given the absence of objections and the finding of no clear error in the R&R. |
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 appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Reyna-Tapia, Remsing) and statutory provisions (28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)). The court explicitly states it reviewed the R&R and found no clear error, satisfying the procedural requirements for adoption. The substantive merits of the Social Security case are contained in the R&R, which is not provided, but the district court's action to adopt the R&R is legally correct based on the record presented in the order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADELLE F., Case No.: 18-cv-1972-AJB (MSB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. Social Security, 15 No. 20); AND Defendant. 16 (2) REVERSING AND REMANDING 17 FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 18 19 20 Presently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Judicial Review of the 21 Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. No. 19.) The Court referred 22 this matter to Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg for a Report and Recommendation (the 23 “R&R”), which was issued on February 7, 2020. (Doc. No. 20.) The Magistrate Judge 24 recommends “judgment be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and 25 remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 26 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” (Id. at 2.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the 27 R&R by February 21, 2020, and a reply to the objections no later than February 28, 2020. 28 (Id. at 25) 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 2 || judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 3 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 4 “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 5 made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 6 ||614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 7 satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 8 ||recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 9 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 10 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the 11 || Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 12 ||hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R; and (2) REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner. 13 Court REMANDS the case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 14 |/U.S.C. § 405(g). 15 16 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 |! Dated: March 2, 2020 Q ZS □□ : 2 19 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28