Cervantes v. O'Malley

Opinion

JACQUELINE C., on behalf of JL, a Case No.: 3:24-cv-1032-RBM-KSC minor ORDER: Plaintiff, (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION (2) VACATING FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security1 DECISION; and Defendant. (3) REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

[Docs. 12–13]

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford, filed on June 10, 2025 (Doc. 27), on the parties’ briefing (Docs. 21, 25–26). The R&R recommends the Court vacate the final decision of the Commissioner and remand for further proceedings. (Doc. 27.) The deadline for filing objections to the 1 Frank Bisignano is now the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration and is R&R was no later than June 24, 2025. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (objections due 14 days after recommendation issued); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (objections to findings and recommendations on dispositive motions due within 10 days). No objections have been filed. 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 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that been properly objected to” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 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 Campbell 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.”) (emphasis in original). Here, neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Crawford’s R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Crawford’s R&R (Doc. 27); (2) VACATES the Commissioner’s decision; and (3) REMANDS this matter with instructions to reevaluate the evidence of record. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. Dated: July 14, 2025 Fe Le ; ? L é > 76 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE