Jones v. Social Security Admin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TARA J., Case No.: 19-CV-2288 TWR (AGS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT & 13 v. RECOMMENDATION, (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting MOTION FOR SUMMARY Commissioner of Social Security, 15 JUDGMENT, Defendant. (3) REVERSING THE DECISION OF 16 THE COMMISSIONER, AND 17 (4) REMANDING ACTION TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR FURTHER 18 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 19 (ECF Nos. 27, 32) 20

21 22 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Tara J.’s Motion for Summary Judgment 23 (“Mot.,” ECF No. 27). Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler has issued a Report and 24 Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Summary-Judgment Motion (ECF No. 27) (“R&R,” ECF 25 No. 32), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion and remand this action for 26 further administrative proceedings. Having carefully reviewed the Parties’ arguments, 27 Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R, the underlying administrative record, and the law, the 28 Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R in its entirety, GRANTS Plaintiff’s 1 Motion, REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, and 2 REMANDS this matter for further administrative action. 3 BACKGROUND 4 Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the 5 factual and procedural history underlying the instant Motion. (See R&R at 1.) This Order 6 incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein. 7 LEGAL STANDARD 8 When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending 9 before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those 10 portion of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, 11 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 12 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United 13 States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[w]hen no timely objection is 14 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 15 in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note 16 to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. 17 denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 18 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate 19 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 20 ANALYSIS 21 As of the date of this Order, the Court has received no objections to Magistrate Judge 22 Schopler’s R&R. (See R&R at 5 (ordering that any objections be filed no later than 23 September 8, 2021).) Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well- 24 reasoned, and contains no clear error. Further, the Court agrees that remanding this action 25 for further administrative proceedings is appropriate because additional proceedings could 26 remedy the defects in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and enhance the 27 administrative record. (See id. at 4–5.) The Court therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge 28 Schopler’s R&R in its entirety. 1 CONCLUSION 2 In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R 3 ||(ECF No. 32), GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 27), 4 || REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner, and REMANDS this matter for further 5 || administrative action. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: September 15, 2021 | Odd (2 re Honorable Todd W. Robinson 10 United States District Court 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28