Alvidres v. O'Malley

Opinion

TAMMY A.,1 Case No.: 24-cv-1452-CAB (MSB)

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 21] FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

On August 15, 2024, Plaintiff Tammy A. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) final adverse decision. [Doc. No. 1.] On December 18,2024, Plaintiff filed their opening brief, claiming the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred when he denied Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits. [Doc. No. 12.] On February 18, 2025, the Commissioner filed an opposition. [Doc. No. 17.] On March 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply. [Doc. No. 20.] On June 13, 2025, Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Court enter a

1Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), “[o]pinions by the Court in [Social Security cases under 42 U.S.C. judgment that reverses the decision of the Commissioner and remands the matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g). [Doc. No. 21.] The Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed by July 11, 2025. [Report at 21.] To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to file an objection. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed .R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”) /// /// /// Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Berg’s Report. [See Doc. No. 21 at 21 (objections due by July 11, 2025).] Having reviewed the Report, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Berg’s report and recommendation [Doc. 21]; (2) REVERSES the Commissioner’s decision; and (3) REMANDS this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). It is SO ORDERED. Dated: July 21, 2025 € Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge