Finkel v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

ADELLE F., Case No.: 18-cv-1972-AJB (MSB)

Plaintiff, ORDER: v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. Social Security, No. 20); AND Defendant. (2) REVERSING AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS Presently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. No. 19.) The Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg for a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued on February 7, 2020. (Doc. No. 20.) The Magistrate Judge recommends “judgment be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” (Id. at 2.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by February 21, 2020, and a reply to the objections no later than February 28, 2020. (Id. at 25) 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[,]” “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 614, 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; and (2) REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner. Court REMANDS the case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 /U.S.C. § 405(g). IT IS SO ORDERED. ! Dated: March 2, 2020 Q ZS □□ : 2 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia United States District Judge