Hepler v. Kijakazi

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 18, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00800
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRAIG H.,1 Case No.: 22-cv-00800-AJB-LR Plaintiff, 12 ORDER: v. 13 (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting 14 RECOMMENDATION; Commissioner of Social Security,

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

17 (4) REMANDING ACTION FOR 18 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

19 (Doc. Nos. 16, 17) 20 21 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Craig H. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Acting 22 Commissioner of the Social Security Administration Kilolo Kijakazi’s Joint Motion for 23 Judicial Review of Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. No. 16.) 24 The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. for a Report and 25 Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 17.) The R&R recommends reversing the decision 26

27 1 Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), “[o]pinions by the court in [Social Security cases under 42 U.S.C. 28 1 the Commissioner denying benefits and remanding the matter back to the Commissioner 2 ||for further administrative action. (Ud. at 48.) The parties were instructed to file written 3 || objections to the R&R no later than August 4, 2023, and replies no later than August 11, 4 || 2023. Id.) 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 6 || judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 7 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 8 “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 9 made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 10 || 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need 11 |/only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 12 || recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment; see 13 || also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 14 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court 15 finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 16 ||hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Rodriguez, Jr.’s R&R, (Doc. No. 17); 17 ||(2) REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits to Plaintiff; and 18 ||(3) REMANDS the case back to the Commissioner for further review pursuant to 42 19 |/U.S.C. § 405(g). 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: August 17, 2023 © ¢ 23 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28