Collings v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY C.,1 Case No.: 23-cv-1076-JES-AHG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of RECOMMENDATION; the Social Security Administration,2 15 Defendant. (2) REVERSING DECISION OF THE 16 COMMISSIONER; and 17 (3) REMANDING ACTION FOR 18 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 19 [ECF Nos. 16, 17] 20

21 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Timothy C. and Defendant Commissioner of 22 the Social Security Administration Martin O’Malley’s Joint Motion for Judicial Review 23

24 25 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.” 26 2 Plaintiff named Kilolo Kijakazi, who was the Acting Commissioner of Social Security when he filed 27 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 28 1 Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. ECF No. 16. The Court 2 ||referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Allison Goddard for a Report and 3 ||Recommendation (“R&R”). ECF No. 17. The R&R recommends reversing the decision 4 || of the Commissioner denying benefits and remanding the matter back to the 5 |}Commissioner for further administrative action. /d. at 30. The parties were instructed to 6 || file written objections to the R&R by August 20, 2024. Id. at 31. 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 8 ||judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must 9 || “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is 10 || made[,]’” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 11 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United 12 || States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9" Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of 13 || objection(s), the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of 14 || the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory 15 committee note to 1983 amendment; see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 16 1114, 1121 (9" Cir. 2003). 17 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the 18 || Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the 19 || Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Goddard’s R&R; (2) REVERSES the 20 || decision of the Commissioner denying benefits to Plaintiff; and (3) REMANDS the case 21 || back to the Commissioner for further review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 54 Dated: August 23, 2024 “4 we Se 4, 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge 27 28