Dryer v. Saul

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT D.,1 Case No.: 20-cv-02132-AJB-MSB Plaintiff, 12 ORDER: v. 13 (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting 14 RECOMMENDATION; Commissioner of Social Security,2

15 Defendant. (2) REVERSING DECISION OF THE 16 COMMISSIONER; and

17 (4) REMANDING ACTION FOR 18 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

19 (Doc. Nos. 11, 12) 20 21 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Robert Dryer’s (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant 22 Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration Kilolo Kijakazi’s Joint Motion 23 for Judicial Review of Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. 24 No. 11.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg for a Report 25

26 1 Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), “[o]pinions by the court in [Social Security cases under 42 U.S.C. 27 § 405(g)] will refer to any non-government parties by using only their first name and last initial.” 2 Kilolo Kijakazi became Acting Commissioner of Social Security on July 9, 2021 and is therefore 28 1 |}and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 12.) The R&R recommends reversing the 2 decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and remanding the matter back to the 3 |}Commissioner for further administrative action “pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C 4 405(g).” Ud. at 21.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R 5 || within 14 days of being served with the R&R, and replies within 14 days of being served 6 || with the objections. (/d.) 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 “make 9 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 10 |/and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 11 ||made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 12 || 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need 13 only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 14 || recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment; see 15 || also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 16 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court 17 || finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 18 || hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Berg’s R&R, (Doc. No. 12); (2) REVERSES the 19 || decision of the Commissioner denying benefits to Plaintiff; and (3) REMANDS the case 20 to the Commissioner for further review pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 21 405(g). 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: January 6, 2022 © ¢ 25 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 26 United States District Judge 27 28