Powers v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in a Social Security appeal where no objections were filed. The court adopted the R&R, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reviewing an unobjected R&R. While 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) mandates de novo review only for objected portions, courts in the Ninth Circuit generally review unobjected R&Rs for clear error or, as done here, for accuracy and sound reasoning. The court's finding that the R&R was 'accurate' and 'well-reasoned' supports the adoption. |
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment“GRANTS Plaintiff's motion” | unclear | unsure The order does not recite the specific legal standard for summary judgment in Social Security cases (e.g., substantial evidence review of the ALJ's decision). However, it adopts the Magistrate's R&R which presumably applied the correct standard. Without the text of the R&R, the specific legal basis is not visible in this order, but the procedural mechanism is correct. |
Remand to Social Security Administration“REMANDS this matter to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four 41 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings” | unclear | agree with court Remand under sentence four of 41 U.S.C. § 405(g) is the standard remedy when a court finds the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence or contained legal error, and further administrative proceedings are necessary. This is a standard and appropriate disposition for a successful plaintiff in a Social Security appeal. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the lack of objections, applies the appropriate statutory framework for reviewing the R&R, and issues a standard remand order. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it does not independently articulate the substantive legal reasoning for granting summary judgment in the Social Security context (e.g., substantial evidence standard), relying entirely on the adoption of the Magistrate's R&R. While legally permissible, it provides no independent judicial analysis of the merits.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SARAH ANNE P., Case No.: 20-cv-1029-MMA (MDD) 11 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED v. STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 13 ANDREW SAUL, [Doc. No. 17] 14 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 15 Defendant. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REMANDING ACTION TO SOCIAL 16 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 17 [Doc. No. 13]
18 19 20 On June 4, 2020, Sarah Anne P. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security appeal 21 challenging the denial of her application for disability benefits. See Doc. No. 1. The 22 Court referred all matters arising in this action to the assigned United States Magistrate 23 Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil 24 Local Rule 72.1. See Doc. No. 4. On November 10, 2020, the parties filed the 25 administrative record. See Doc. No. 11. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary 26 judgment. See Doc. No. 13. Judge Dembin has issued a report recommending that the 27 Court grant Plaintiff’s motion and remand the case for further administrative action to 28 determine whether Plaintiff is disabled. See Doc. No. 17. l Pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 2 || § 636(b)(1), the Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report 3 ||... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 4 || the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” 28 U.S.C. 5 || § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 6 || Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later than March 25, 2021. 7 || See Doc. No. 17 at 20. To date, neither party has objected to the Report and 8 || Recommendation, and the time for doing so has expired. See Docket. 9 The Court finds that Judge Dembin has issued an accurate Report and well- 10 || reasoned recommendation that the motion be granted. The Court therefore ADOPTS the 11 Report and Recommendation in its entirety, GRANTS Plaintiff's motion, and 12 ||, REMANDS this matter to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four 13 41 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Court’s 14 || Order and Judge Dembin’s Report and Recommendation. The Court further DIRECTS 15 Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||Dated: March 26, 2021 18 Vite ld - Ld lols 19 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 50 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28