Royal v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) in a Social Security disability case where neither party filed objections. The court adopted the R&R in its entirety, 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 |
|---|---|---|
Adopting the Report and Recommendation in its entirety“Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Magistrate Judge's R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), de novo review is required only if objections are filed. Since no objections were filed, the court was not required to conduct a de novo review, though it chose to do so and found the reasoning sound. The adoption is procedurally correct. |
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment“GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 15)” | unclear | unsure The order does not recite the specific legal grounds for granting summary judgment in the Social Security context (e.g., substantial evidence, legal error). It relies entirely on the Magistrate Judge's R&R, which is not included in the provided text. Therefore, it is impossible to verify if the legal application was correct based solely on this order. |
Denying Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment“DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 19)” | unclear | unsure Similar to the plaintiff's motion, the order does not state the specific legal reasons for denying the defendant's motion. It adopts the R&R's conclusion without detailing the underlying legal analysis regarding the administrative record. |
Remanding for further proceedings“REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS” | unclear | unsure The remand is a direct consequence of granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a Social Security case. While the order is procedurally consistent, the specific instructions for the remand (e.g., what the ALJ must do) are contained in the R&R, which is not provided. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound regarding the adoption of the Magistrate Judge's R&R. It correctly cites the relevant Ninth Circuit precedent (Reyna-Tapia, Wang) establishing that de novo review is not mandatory in the absence of objections. The court explicitly states it conducted a de novo review anyway and found the reasoning sound. However, the order provides no substantive legal analysis regarding the underlying Social Security claim, relying entirely on the unprovided R&R. Thus, while the procedural mechanism is correct, the substantive legal application cannot be evaluated from this document alone.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYNTHIA ROYAL, Case No. 21-cv-1612-BAS-LR 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting RECOMMENDATION IN ITS Commissioner of the Social Security 15 ENTIRETY (ECF No. 22); Administration 16 Defendant. (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 15); 18 19 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR 20 SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF 21 No. 19); and 22 (4) REMANDING FOR FURTHER 23 PROCEEDINGS 25 On September 15, 2021, Plaintiff Cynthia Royal (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint 26 against Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security 27 (“Defendant”), seeking judicial review of Defendant’s decision to deny Plaintiff disability 28 insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 423. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff moved for 1 summary judgment on June 24, 2022, seeking a remand for a new hearing and decision. 2 (ECF No. 15.) In response, Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, requesting 3 that the Court uphold Defendant’s decision. (ECF No. 19.) The Court then referred this 4 matter to United States Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr., who issued a Report and 5 Recommendation (“R&R”) on January 23, 2023, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for 6 summary judgment be granted, that Defendant’s cross-motion be denied, and that the 7 matter be remanded for further administrative proceedings. (R&R, ECF No. 22.) 8 The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on February 13, 2023. (R&R at 9 35.) Both parties are represented by counsel, but to date, neither party has filed any 10 objections. 11 I. ANALYSIS 12 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), where, as here, a district court designates a magistrate 13 judge to “hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court,” the district 14 judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 15 made by the magistrate judge.” That statute makes clear the district court must review the 16 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo “if objection is made, but not 17 otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 18 Neither the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 19 findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. at 1221. 20 This rule of law is well-established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. 21 Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R&R 22 is only required when an objection is made to the R&R.”); Nelson v. Glurbino, 395 F. Supp. 23 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither 24 party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so); accord Schmidt v. 25 Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no 26 objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s 27 report). 28 1 In this case, the deadline for filing objections was February 13, 2023. However, no 2 ||objections have been filed and neither party has requested additional time to do so. 3 || Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 4 at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the parties’ competing 5 ||motions for summary judgment and the R&R, this Court concludes Judge Rodriguez’s 6 || reasoning 1s sound and accurate in recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion 7 ||for summary judgment, deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and 8 ||remand this action to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings. Therefore, 9 Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 10 || 636(b)(1). 11 CONCLUSION & ORDER 12 Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS IN 13 |} ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. (ECF No. 22). Accordingly, the Court further GRANTS 14 || Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15), DENIES Defendant’s cross- 15 |}motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19), and REMANDS this action for further 16 || proceedings consistent with this Order and the R&R. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || DATED: February 14, 2023 Cypillg (Hiphanr 6 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28