Augustine v. Berryhill
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in a Social Security disability case where no objections were filed. The court adopted the report, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied the defendant's cross-motion, and remanded the case for calculation of benefits.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“The report and recommendation (ECF No. 31] is ADOPTED in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reviewing a Report and Recommendation (R&R). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R&R to which a party objects. When no objections are filed, the court is not required to conduct a de novo review but may still do so. The court noted that no objections were filed and the deadline had expired, yet it voluntarily conducted a de novo review and found the R&R to be well-reasoned and free of clear error. This procedure is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent (e.g., *Reyna-Tapia*, *Wang v. Masaitis*). |
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED.” | de novo | agree with court The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the plaintiff's motion. In Social Security cases, the district court reviews the administrative record to determine if the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence. By adopting the R&R, the court implicitly accepted the magistrate's finding that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The court's independent de novo review confirmed this finding. |
Denying Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment“Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED.” | de novo | agree with court The denial of the defendant's cross-motion is a necessary corollary to the granting of the plaintiff's motion. Since the court found the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, the defendant could not prevail on summary judgment. The court's adoption of the R&R encompasses this decision. |
Reversal of Commissioner's Determination and Remand for Calculation of Benefits“The Commissioner’s determination that Plaintiff is not disabled is REVERSED. The matter is REMANDED for calculation of benefits.” | de novo | agree with court The court reversed the administrative decision and remanded the case specifically for the calculation of benefits. This is a common remedy in Social Security cases where the court finds the claimant is disabled but the administrative record lacks sufficient information to calculate the exact benefit amount (e.g., due to a missing onset date or other technical deficiency). The court's order is consistent with the Social Security Act and Ninth Circuit practice. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standards for reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). It accurately cites Ninth Circuit precedent (*Remsing*, *Wang*, *Reyna-Tapia*) to support its decision to adopt the R&R despite the absence of objections. The court voluntarily conducted a de novo review, which is permissible and often prudent, and found no clear error. The resulting orders (granting plaintiff's motion, denying defendant's cross-motion, reversing the administrative decision, and remanding for benefit calculation) are standard remedies in Social Security cases where the court finds the claimant disabled but the record is insufficient for immediate benefit calculation. There are no gaps or questionable reasoning in the order itself.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRELL J. AUGUSTINE, Case No.: 17cv00238 JAH-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION IN ITS ENTIRETY; GRANTING 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR Social Security, 15 SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND Defendant. DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS- 16 MOTION FOR SUMMARY 17 JUDGMENT [ECF Nos. 13, 14, 31] 18 19 On February 8, 2017, Plaintiff Darrell J. Augustine filed a complaint against the 20 Commissioner of Social Security, under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 21 seeking review of the Social Security Administration’s decision denying Plaintiff’s 22 application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. See ECF 23 No. 1. Defendant filed an answer to the complaint along with the administrative record. 24 ECF Nos. 10, 11. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and 25 Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 13, 14. This Court 26 referred the matter to the Honorable Allison H. Goddard, United States Magistrate Judge 27 for a Report and Recommendation (“report”). 28 1 Judge Goddard recommends this Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary 2 judgment, deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, reverse the 3 Commissioner’s determination that Plaintiff is not disabled and remand the matter for 4 calculation of benefits. Both parties are represented by counsel, but to date, neither party 5 filed any objections. 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 7 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 8 district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report to which 9 objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 10 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also 11 United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). When no objections are 12 filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 13 recommendation. Id. (reasoning that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the 14 district judge must review the magistrate judge's finding and recommendations de novo if 15 objection is made, but not otherwise”); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 16 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005)(“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an 17 objection is made to the R & R[.]”). 18 Here, the deadline for filing objections has expired. No objections have been filed, 19 and neither party has requested additional time to do so. Consequently, the Court may 20 adopt the report on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 21 2003). Nevertheless, having conducted a de novo review of the report, the Court finds it 22 is well-reasoned and contains no clear error. 23 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 24 1. The report and recommendation (ECF No. 31] is ADOPTED in its entirety. 25 2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED. 26 3. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED. 27 4. The Commissioner’s determination that Plaintiff is not disabled is 28 REVERSED. 1 5. The matter is REMANDED for calculation of benefits. 2 6. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 3 |}DATED: March 25, 2024 4 > JOJIN A. HOUSTON 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28