Debruzzi v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a joint motion for summary judgment and a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending the reversal of a Social Security Commissioner's decision. The court adopted the R&R, reversed the ALJ's decision, 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“The Court finds the Report and Recommendation to be correct, well-reasoned, and thorough, and adopts it in every respect.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation. Because no party filed objections to the R&R, the court was not required to conduct a de novo review of the specific findings, but rather reviewed the R&R for clear error. The court's statement that it adopted the R&R because it was 'correct, well-reasoned, and thorough' is consistent with the authority cited (United States v. Reyna-Tapia). |
Granting of the joint motion for summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the joint motion for summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff consistent with the findings and conclusions in the Report and Recommendation” | de novo | agree with court In Social Security cases, summary judgment is the standard mechanism for resolving the appeal. The court granted the motion 'in part' because it reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded, rather than awarding benefits directly. This is the standard outcome when the ALJ's decision is found to be legally deficient but further fact-finding is required. |
Reversal of the ALJ's decision and remand to the Commissioner“REVERSES the decision of the Administrative Law Judge dated June 2021 denying Plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income... and REMANDS this matter to the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative action consistent with the Report and Recommendation.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly exercised its authority under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand. The citation to Kail v. Heckler supports the proposition that remand is appropriate when additional administrative proceedings can remedy defects in the decision. The court relied on the Magistrate's findings (which are not detailed in this order but are referenced as 'correct') to justify the reversal. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation when no objections are filed (no de novo review required, but review for clear error is implied by the adoption). It correctly cites the statutory authority for reversing and remanding a Social Security decision. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order adopting an R&R.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 22-cv-00695-DMS-MSB LISA D., 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION 13 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 Pending before the Court is the Parties’ joint motion for summary judgment. (ECF 18 No. 19.) On August 25, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg filed a 19 Report and Recommendation for an order reversing the decision of the Commissioner of 20 Social Security and remanding the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative 21 proceedings. (R. & R., ECF No. 20.1) Judge Berg set September 6, 2023 as the deadline 22 for the parties to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (R. & R. at 35.) No 23 party filed an objection. 24 The district court reviewing a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security may 25 enter a “judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing” the Commissioner’s decision. 42 26 27 1 Lisa D. v. Kijakazi, No. 22-cv-00695-DMS-MSB, 2023 WL 5501215 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2023) (report 28 1 U.S.C. § 405(g). “[R]emand is proper where additional administrative proceedings could 2 ||remedy defects” in the decision. Kail v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1496, 1497 (9th Cir. 1984). 3 “The district judge must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report .. . 4 ||to which objection is made,’ and ‘may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 5 || findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.’”” Campuzano v. Comm’r of Soc. 6 No. 20-CV-721-WQH-WVG, 2021 WL 3848164 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2021) (quoting 7 ||28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). However, the district judge need not review de novo those portions 8 a report and recommendation to which neither party objects. See United States v. Reyna- 9 || Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the 10 ||[Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and 11 ||}recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). 12 The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the joint 13 ||motion. The Court finds the Report and Recommendation to be correct, well-reasoned, 14 || and thorough, and adopts it in every respect. 15 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the joint motion for summary judgment 16 |/in favor of Plaintiff consistent with the findings and conclusions in the Report and 17 || Recommendation; REVERSES the decision of the Administrative Law Judge dated June 18 2021 denying Plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental 19 security income (Admin. R. at 12—29, ECF No. 10-2), which became final on March 14, 20 upon the Appeals Council’s denial of review (id. at 1-6); and REMANDS this matter 21 ||to the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative action 22 consistent with the Report and Recommendation. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: September 8, 2023 26 □ hrs Yn. <L)\ Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 28