Irizarry 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 the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied the defendant's cross-motion, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“The Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. No. 25)” | 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 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. |
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment“GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 21)” | de novo | agree with court The district court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant summary judgment. Since the Magistrate Judge's R&R was found to contain no clear error and no objections were filed, the district court's adoption of the substantive ruling is procedurally sound. The specific merits of the summary judgment are contained in the R&R, which the court found thorough and well-reasoned. |
Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment“DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 22)” | de novo | agree with court Similar to the plaintiff's motion, the denial of the defendant's cross-motion is based on the adoption of the R&R. The court's finding of no clear error in the R&R supports the adoption of this recommendation. |
Reversal and Remand“REVERSES the decision of Defendant. The 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 ordered a remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This is a standard remedy in Social Security cases where the court finds the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence or contained legal error. The order correctly cites the statutory authority for the remand. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for an unobjected R&R (clear error), cites the relevant statutes and Ninth Circuit case law, and explicitly states that the court reviewed the R&R and found no clear error. The resulting orders (adoption, grant, deny, remand) follow logically from the adoption of the R&R.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AIDA I., Case No.: 3:19-cv-00476-AJB-RNB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. Social Security, 15 No. 25); Defendant. 16 (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 21); 18 19 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 20 JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 22). 21 22 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and 23 Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 21–22.) The Court referred 24 this matter to Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block for a Report and Recommendation (the 25 “R&R”), which was issued on January 28, 2020. (Doc. No. 25.) The Magistrate Judge 26 recommends “that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be GRANTED, that the 27 Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment be DENIED, and that Judgment be 28 entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further 1 || administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” Ud. at 12 2 (emphasis in original).) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R 3 || within 14 days of being served with the R&R, and replies within 14 days of being served 4 || with the objections. (/d.) 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 6 || judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 7 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 8 “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 9 || made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 10 ||614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need only 11 ||satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 12 || recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 13 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 14 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the 15 || Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 16 ||hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. No. 25); (2) GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for 17 |}summary judgment (Doc. No. 21), (3) DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary 18 ||/judgment (Doc. No. 22), and (4) REVERSES the decision of Defendant. The Court 19 || REMANDS the case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 20 || 405(g). 21 22 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 23 24 ||Dated: April 17, 2020 C ) 7 □ 25 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 26 United States District Judge 27 28