Duhamel v. Berryhill
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a Social Security disability case, noting that no objections were filed. The court adopted the R&R, denied the plaintiff's motion, affirmed the Commissioner's decision, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it.” | 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 (United States v. Reyna-Tapia), a district court must conduct a de novo review of a magistrate's findings even in the absence of objections. The court explicitly stated it reviewed the R&R and found it correct, satisfying the statutory requirement. |
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment“Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is DENIED” | de novo | agree with court The denial of the motion follows directly from the adoption of the R&R, which recommended denial. Since the court adopted the R&R after a de novo review, the underlying decision to deny summary judgment is affirmed as part of that adoption. |
Affirmation of the Commissioner's Decision and Dismissal of Action“the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” | de novo | agree with court The dismissal with prejudice is the standard procedural conclusion when a plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a Social Security case is denied and the administrative decision is affirmed. The court correctly terminated the litigation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for an unobjected R&R, cites the correct statutory and case law authorities (including the en banc Ninth Circuit decision in Reyna-Tapia), and explicitly states that the court conducted a review and found the R&R correct before adopting it. There are no gaps in the reasoning regarding the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Leon Duhamel, Jr., Case No.: 18-cv-02624-LAB-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 14 Nancy A. Berryhill, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND 15 Defendant. AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION 16 17 Plaintiff Leon Duhamel, Jr. filed his complaint, seeking relief from denial of Social 18 Security disability benefits. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jill Burkhardt 19 for report and recommendation. After Defendant’s counsel filed the administrative record, 20 Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Judge Burkhardt issued her report and 21 recommendation (the “R&R”) on November 12, 2020, recommending that his motion for 22 summary judgment be denied, and that the Commissioner’s decision denying relief should 23 be affirmed. Objections to the R&R were due November 30, 2020, but none have been 24 filed. 25 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and 26 recommendation on dispositive matters. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The 27 district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that 28 has been properly objected to.” Id. Section 636(b)(1) similarly requires that a district judge 1 “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 2 ||findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” “A judge of the court may 3 || accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 4 magistrate judge.” Id. 5 This section does not require some lesser review by the district court when no 6 || objections are filed. Thomas vy. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The “statute makes it 7 \|clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and 8 ||recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna- 9 || Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). 10 Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. 11 |/Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is DENIED, nd _ the 12 ||Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. This action is DISMISSED WITH 13 || PREJUDICE. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: January 11, 2021 18 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28