Bavin v. Berryhill
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in a Social Security appeal where no party filed objections. The court adopted the R&R, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, denied the Defendant's Cross-Motion, and ordered a remand for further administrative proceedings.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26) 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 Ninth Circuit precedent (Wang v. Masaitis), a district court must conduct a de novo review of the R&R when no objections are filed. The court explicitly stated it reviewed the R&R, the record, and submissions, satisfying the procedural requirement. |
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) is granted.” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant the motion. While the order does not detail the substantive legal analysis of the Social Security claim, the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R after a de novo review is legally sound. The court relied on the Magistrate's findings, which it reviewed. |
Denying Commissioner's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment“The Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) is denied.” | de novo | agree with court Consistent with the adoption of the R&R, the court denied the opposing motion. This follows logically from the grant of the Plaintiff's motion and the Magistrate's recommendation. |
Remand for further administrative proceedings“The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of U.S.C. § 405(g).” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly invoked sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (cited as U.S.C. § 405(g) in the text, which is the standard citation for Social Security remands) to effectuate the remand. This is the standard remedy when a Social Security decision is reversed due to procedural or substantive errors identified in the R&R. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for a Report and Recommendation in the absence of objections, cites the correct Ninth Circuit authorities (Wang and Reyna-Tapia) to support its review process, and explicitly states that it conducted a de novo review of the record and submissions. The resulting orders (granting plaintiff's motion, denying defendant's motion, and remanding) follow directly from the adopted R&R. There are no gaps in the procedural reasoning provided in this specific order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 VLADIMIR BAVIN, Case No.: 19-cv-779-WQH-JLB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 ANDREW SAUL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 14 Defendant. 15 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 The matters before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by 18 Plaintiff Vladimir Bavin (ECF No. 19), the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by 19 Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) (ECF No. 22), and the 20 Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 26) recommending 21 that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, deny the Commissioner’s 22 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and remand this matter for further administrative 23 proceedings. 24 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 25 magistrate judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 26 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions 27 of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 28 or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 1 636(b)(1). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and 2 recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 3 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 4 ||(en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 5 ||review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 6 || correct.”’). 7 No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 8 ||reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26) is 10 || adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) is granted. 11 || The Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) is denied. The 12 || Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment reversing the decision of the Commissioner and 13 ||remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 14 U.S.C. § 405(g). 15 |} Dated: February 22, 2021 itt Z. A a 16 Hon. William Q. Hayes 7 United States District Court 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28