Collings v. Kijakazi

Opinion

TIMOTHY C.,1 Case No.: 23-cv-1076-JES-AHG

Plaintiff, ORDER: v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of RECOMMENDATION; the Social Security Administration,2 Defendant. (2) REVERSING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER; and (3) REMANDING ACTION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS [ECF Nos. 16, 17]

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Timothy C. and Defendant Commissioner of the Social Security Administration Martin O’Malley’s Joint Motion for Judicial Review

1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), “[o]pinions by the Court in [Social Security cases under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)] will refer to any non-government parties by using only their first name and last initial.” 2 Plaintiff named Kilolo Kijakazi, who was the Acting Commissioner of Social Security when he filed his Complain on June 30, 2023, as a Defendant in this action. See ECF No. 1 at 1. Martin O’Malley is now the Commissioner of Social Security, and he is automatically substituted as a party pursuant to Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. ECF No. 16. The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Allison Goddard for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). ECF No. 17. The R&R recommends reversing the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and remanding the matter back to the }Commissioner for further administrative action. /d. at 30. The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by August 20, 2024. Id. at 31. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions 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. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9" Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), 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(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment; see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9" Cir. 2003). Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Goddard’s R&R; (2) REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits to Plaintiff; and (3) REMANDS the case back to the Commissioner for further review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 54 Dated: August 23, 2024 “4 we Se 4, Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge