Debruzzi v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 22-cv-00695-DMS-MSB LISA D.,

11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION

13 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 Pending before the Court is the Parties’ joint motion for summary judgment. (ECF 18 No. 19.) On August 25, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg filed a 19 Report and Recommendation for an order reversing the decision of the Commissioner of 20 Social Security and remanding the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative 21 proceedings. (R. & R., ECF No. 20.1) Judge Berg set September 6, 2023 as the deadline 22 for the parties to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (R. & R. at 35.) No 23 party filed an objection. 24 The district court reviewing a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security may 25 enter a “judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing” the Commissioner’s decision. 42 26

27 1 Lisa D. v. Kijakazi, No. 22-cv-00695-DMS-MSB, 2023 WL 5501215 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2023) (report 28 1 U.S.C. § 405(g). “[R]emand is proper where additional administrative proceedings could 2 ||remedy defects” in the decision. Kail v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1496, 1497 (9th Cir. 1984). 3 “The district judge must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report .. . 4 ||to which objection is made,’ and ‘may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 5 || findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.’”” Campuzano v. Comm’r of Soc. 6 No. 20-CV-721-WQH-WVG, 2021 WL 3848164 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2021) (quoting 7 ||28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). However, the district judge need not review de novo those portions 8 a report and recommendation to which neither party objects. See United States v. Reyna- 9 || Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the 10 ||[Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and 11 ||}recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). 12 The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the joint 13 ||motion. The Court finds the Report and Recommendation to be correct, well-reasoned, 14 || and thorough, and adopts it in every respect. 15 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the joint motion for summary judgment 16 |/in favor of Plaintiff consistent with the findings and conclusions in the Report and 17 || Recommendation; REVERSES the decision of the Administrative Law Judge dated June 18 2021 denying Plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental 19 security income (Admin. R. at 12—29, ECF No. 10-2), which became final on March 14, 20 upon the Appeals Council’s denial of review (id. at 1-6); and REMANDS this matter 21 ||to the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative action 22 consistent with the Report and Recommendation. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: September 8, 2023 26 □ hrs Yn.