Campuzano v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment in a Social Security disability case and a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation recommending the denial of the plaintiff's motion and the granting of the defendant's motion. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation, denied the plaintiff's motion, granted the Commissioner's motion, and ordered judgment for the Commissioner.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) is adopted in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation. Because no party filed an objection, the court was not required to conduct a de novo review of the specific findings, but it properly reviewed the record and adopted the recommendation. The citation to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and the Ninth Circuit precedent (Wang v. Masaitis) supports the procedural posture. |
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) is denied.” | unclear | unsure The order does not recite the specific legal standards for summary judgment in Social Security cases (e.g., substantial evidence review of the ALJ's decision). It relies entirely on the adoption of the R&R. Without the text of the R&R, the specific legal reasoning is not present in this order, but the procedural mechanism for the denial is correct. |
Granting of Commissioner's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment“The Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is granted.” | unclear | unsure Similar to the denial of the plaintiff's motion, the order grants the defendant's motion based on the adoption of the R&R. The specific merits of the Social Security claim (e.g., whether the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence) are not detailed in this order. |
Entry of Judgment for the Commissioner“The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against Plaintiff and shall close the case.” | unclear | agree with court This is the standard administrative consequence of granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a civil case. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for a Report and Recommendation where no objections were filed. It cites the correct statutory and case law authorities for the proposition that de novo review is not required in the absence of objections. However, because the order is a short adoption order, it does not contain the substantive legal analysis regarding the Social Security claim itself, which is contained in the underlying Report and Recommendation.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RUBEN RUIZ CAMPUZANO, Case No.: 20-cv-721-WQH-WVG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 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 Rubin Ruiz Campuzano (ECF No. 12), the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 19 filed by Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) (ECF No. 15), 20 and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 18) 21 recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant 22 the Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 23 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 24 magistrate judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 25 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions 26 of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 27 or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 28 636(b)(1). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and 1 || recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 2 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003) 3 ||(en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 4 ||review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 5 || correct.”). 6 No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 7 reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) is 9 || adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) is denied. 10 || The Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is granted. The 11 Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against Plaintiff 12 || and shall close the case. 13 |} Dated: August 26, 2021 Nitta Z. A a 14 Hon, William Q. Hayes 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28