Bartle v. Saul

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHAD B., Case No.: 20cv1431-CAB-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 13] REGARDING JOINT MOTION FOR 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of REVIEW [Doc. No. 12] Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 18 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 19 Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg, filed on November 29, 2021, regarding the Joint 20 Motion for Judicial Review [Doc. No. 12], recommending that the Court reverse the 21 Commissioner’s decision, and enter judgment reversing the decision of the 22 Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant 23 to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.§405(g). [Doc. No. 13.] 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 25 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 26 district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report to which 27 objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 28 1 || or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also 2 || United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 3 || F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court 4 || “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 5 || accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 6 || Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. 7 || Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003)(“[T]he district judge must review the 8 || magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 9 || otherwise.”’). 10 Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Berg’s R&R. 11 Doc. No. 13 at 20 (objections due by December 13, 2021).] Having reviewed the 12 ||R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 13 || Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Berg’s report and 14 || recommendation [Doc. No. 13]; (2) REVERSES the Commissioner’s decision; and (3) 15 ||} REMANDS this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four 16 || of 42 U.S.C.8405(g). 17 This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: December 14, 2021 € □ 20 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28