Copenhaver v. Berryhill

Opinion

LAURA C., Case No.: 18-cv-00790-AJB-MDD

Plaintiff, ORDER: v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 24); Defendant. (2) GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 21); (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 22.); AND

(4) REMANDING FOR FURTHER

Presently before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff Laura Joyce Copenhaver’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 21); and (2) Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Defendant”) cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 22). The Court /referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin for a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued on January 2, 2020. (Doc. No. 24.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court: (1) grant in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and (2) deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (/d. at 2.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by January 17, 2020 a reply to the objections no later than January 24, 2020. Ud.) 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); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 617 (9th 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 the 1983 amendment; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R; (2) GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and (3) DENIES Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. The Court REMANDS the case for further proceedings. IT ISSO ORDERED. || Dated: February 3, 2020 | ZS Zz : Le Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia United States District Judge