McGruder 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 disability appeal where neither party filed objections. The court adopted the R&R, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied the defendant's motion, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“Upon due consideration, the Court ADOPTS Skomal’s Report and Recommendation” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation. While 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) requires de novo review only for portions to which objection is made, the court explicitly states it made a 'review and determination in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636'. In the absence of objections, a district judge may accept the R&R after a general review to ensure no clear error. The court's decision to adopt the R&R is procedurally sound. |
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment“GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment” | de novo | agree with court The court granted the motion based on the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. In Social Security cases, summary judgment is the standard mechanism for resolving the administrative record. The court's adoption of the R&R implies it found the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence or contained legal error, as recommended by the Magistrate. Without the specific text of the R&R, the court's reliance on the Magistrate's 'detailed and well-reasoned' analysis is the standard procedural path. |
Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment“DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary judgment” | de novo | agree with court The court denied the Commissioner's motion, consistent with the Magistrate's recommendation. This is a logical corollary to granting the plaintiff's motion in a Social Security appeal where the burden is on the Commissioner to show the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. |
Remanding for Further Administrative Proceedings“the Court REMANDS this matter to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings” | de novo | agree with court Remand is the appropriate remedy when a Social Security decision is reversed. The court directed the remand to be consistent with the R&R, which is standard practice to ensure the ALJ addresses the specific errors identified by the court. |
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. It cites the correct binding authorities (Thomas v. Arn, Wang v. Masaitis, Reyna-Tapia) to support its procedural posture. The court explicitly states it conducted a review in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 before adopting the R&R. There are no gaps in the reasoning regarding the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 STEPHANIE M., Case No. 20-cv-1711-MMA (BGS)
11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 13 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security, 14 [Doc. No. 15] Defendant. 15 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 16 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
17 [Doc. No. 12] 18 DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 19 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND 20 [Doc. No. 13] 21 22 REMANDING FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 23 24 25 On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff Stephanie M. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security 26 appeal challenging the denial of her application for social security disability insurance 27 benefits. See Doc. No. 1. The Court referred all matters in this action to United States 28 Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal for report and recommendation pursuant to section 1 636(b)(1)(B) of Title 28 of the United States Code and Civil Local Rule 72.1. See Doc. 2 No. 7. On July 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 1. On 3 August 9, 2021, Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi, Commissioner of Social Security,1 filed a 4 cross motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 13. Judge Skomal has issued a detailed 5 and well-reasoned report, recommending the Court deny Defendant’s summary judgment 6 motion, grant Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, and remand the case for further 7 administrative proceedings. Doc. No. 15 (“Report and Recommendation”). Neither 8 party has objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has 9 expired. 10 The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and 11 recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 12 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a report and recommendation, “[a] 13 judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 14 [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 15 140, 149–50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the 16 report and recommendation de novo. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 17 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) 18 (en banc). A district judge may nevertheless “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 19 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1); see also Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006). 21 The Court has made a review and determination in accordance with the 22 requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Upon due consideration, the 23 Court ADOPTS Judge Skomal’s Report and Recommendation, DENIES Defendant’s 24 motion for summary judgment, and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. 25 26 1 Kilolo Kijakazi is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Therefore, pursuant to Federal 27 Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Kilolo Kijakazi is substituted for Andrew Saul as the defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be taken, pursuant to the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social 28 1 || Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this matter to the Social Security Administration for 2 || further administrative proceedings consistent with this Court’s Order and Judge Skomal’s 3 || Report and Recommendation. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter 4 ||judgment accordingly and close the case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: April 25, 2022 7 [libithe -(hilter 8 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Wilkins v. Ramirez 04CV00118-J (WMC) · 2006-10-02