Henderson v. Saul

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL A. H., Case No. 20-cv-00911-BAS-LL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) APPROVING AND ADOPTING 14 ANDREW SAUL, REPORT AND 15 Defendant. RECOMMENDATION IN ITS ENTIRETY (ECF No. 21); 16

17 (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 18 JUDGMENT (ECF No. 18); 19 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 20 CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY 21 JUDGMENT (ECF No. 19); AND

22 (4) REMANDING ACTION FOR 23 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

26 27 Plaintiff Manuel A. H. commenced this action under the Social Security Act, 42 28 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the Social Security Administration’s denial of Plaintiff’s 1 application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits. The Court referred this 2 matter to United States Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez, who issued a Report and 3 Recommendation (“R&R”) on April 15, 2021, recommending that this Court: (1) grant 4 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) deny Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Sumary 5 Judgment; and (3) reverse the decision of the Commissioner and remand the matter for 6 further administrative proceedings. (R&R 27:26–28:2.) The time for filing objections to 7 the R&R expired on April 29, 2021. (Id. 28:7–8.) Both parties are represented by counsel, 8 but to date, neither party has filed any objections. 9 10 I. ANALYSIS 11 The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are made, 12 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), but where no objections are filed, the district court has no obligation 13 to review the magistrate judge’s report, see United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 14 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district 15 judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept 16 as correct.”); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of 17 course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the 18 R & R.”). 19 In the social-security context, the district court’s jurisdiction is limited to 20 determining whether the Social Security Administration’s denial of benefits is supported 21 by substantial evidence in the administrative record. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A district 22 court may overturn a decision to deny benefits only if it is not supported by substantial 23 evidence or if the decision is based on legal error. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 24 1039 (9th Cir. 1995); Magallenes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). The Ninth 25 Circuit defines substantial evidence as “more than a mere scintilla but less than a 26 preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 27 to support a conclusion.” Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039. Determinations of credibility, 28 resolution of conflicts in medical testimony, and all other ambiguities are to be resolved by 1 administrative law judge (“ALJ”). See id.; Magallenes, 881 F.2d at 750. The decision 2 the ALJ will be upheld if the evidence is “susceptible to more than one rational 3 interpretation.” Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1040. 4 In this case, no objections have been filed by the deadline for filing objections, which 5 || fell on April 29, 2021. Neither party has requested additional time to do so. Consequently, 6 Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 7 || Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the R&R, the Court concludes that 8 || Judge Lopez’s reasoning is sound and correct in recommending that this Court grant 9 || Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary 10 ||judgment, and judgment be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and 11 |}remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings. Therefore, the Court 12 ||approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 13 14 ||. CONCLUSION 15 In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF 16 21), GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18), and DENIES 17 || Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19). The Court REMANDS 18 || this action for further proceedings consistent with this Order. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 /\ yy 21 || DATED: May 21, 2021 ( itl A (Lohan 6 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28