Pimentel 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, 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 for reviewing an R&R when no objections are filed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the district judge reviews for clear error on the face of the record. The court explicitly states it reviewed the R&R and found no clear error, which is the correct procedural posture. |
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 court found no clear error in the R&R, the underlying decision to deny the motion is adopted. The order does not recite the specific factual or legal reasons for the denial, relying entirely on the R&R. |
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 cross-motion. As with the denial of the plaintiff's motion, the court relied on its finding that the R&R contained no clear error. The specific merits of the summary judgment are not detailed in this order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for a non-objected R&R (clear error) and cites the correct authorities (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and Ninth Circuit precedent). The court explicitly states it reviewed the R&R and found no clear error, which is the required step before adoption. The order is concise and follows standard practice for adopting an R&R without objections.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL P., Case No.: 19-CV-112-AJB-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. Social Security, 15 No. 22); Defendant. 16 (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 19); AND 18 19 (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 20 JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 20). 21 22 Presently before the Court are (1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 23 No. 19), and (2) Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 20). The 24 Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo for a Report and 25 Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued on February 11, 2020. (Doc. No. 22.) 26 The Magistrate Judge recommends “Plaintiff’s MSJ be DENIED and that Defendant’s 27 Cross-MSJ be GRANTED.” (Id. at 10.) The parties were instructed to file written 28 objections to the R&R by February 26, 2020, and a reply to the objections no later than 1 || March 4, 2020. (d.) 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 3 || judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 4 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 5 “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 6 made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 7 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 8 ||satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 9 || recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 10 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 11 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the 12 || Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 13 ||hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R; (2) DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; 14 || and (3) GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. 15 16 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 || Dated: March 5, 2020 | ZS Zt Le 19 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28