Moore v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in a Social Security case where neither party filed objections. The court adopted the R&R, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied the defendant's cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Dembin’s report and recommendation” | 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 (e.g., United States v. Reyna-Tapia), in the absence of timely objections, the district court reviews the R&R for clear error. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation. |
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment“GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment” | de novo | agree with court The court granted the motion based on the adoption of the Magistrate Judge's R&R. Since the R&R recommended granting the motion and the court found no clear error in that recommendation, the grant is procedurally consistent with the review standard applied. |
Denying Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment“DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment” | de novo | agree with court The court denied the cross-motion based on the adoption of the Magistrate Judge's R&R. The R&R recommended denying the cross-motion, and the court found no clear error in that recommendation. |
Remand of the case for further proceedings“REMANDS the case for further proceedings” | de novo | agree with court The court ordered a remand as part of the adoption of the R&R. This is a standard remedy in Social Security cases where the ALJ's decision is found to be legally insufficient or unsupported by substantial evidence. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for an unobjected R&R (clear error) and cites the relevant statutory and case law authorities. It finds the R&R thorough and free of clear error, leading to the adoption of the recommendation. The reasoning is sound and follows the procedural requirements of Rule 72 and § 636.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIE R. M., Case No.: 20cv1608-LL-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 19]; 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,1 15 (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Defendant. MOTION FOR SUMMARY 16 JUDGMENT [ECF No. 16]; AND 17 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 18 CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 19 JUDGMENT [ECF No. 17]
20 21 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 22 Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin, filed on October 26, 2021, recommending that the 23 24 25 26 1 Kilolo Kijakazi became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on July 9, 2021. 27 Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to modify the docket by substituting Kilolo Kijakazi for Andrew Saul as 28 1 |}Court grant Plaintiff's Julie R. M.’s motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant’s 2 || cross-motion for summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings. ECF No. 19. 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 4 ||court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 5 || district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which 6 || objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 7 ||recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United 8 || States. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 9 ||617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only 10 satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 11 ||recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. 12 || Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206) (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 13 1/328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)([T]he district judge must review the magistrate 14 ||judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 15 Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R 16 || See Doc. No. 19 at 20 (objections due by November 9, 2021). Having reviewed the R&R, 17 || the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, 18 Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Dembin’s report and recommendation; (2) 19 || GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment; (3) DENIES Defendant’s cross- 20 motion for summary judgment; and (4) REMANDS the case for further proceedings. 21 This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file. 22 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: January 25, 2022 NO 24 DE | 25 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 27 28