Maye v. Berryhill

Opinion

KENNETH EDWARD MAYE, Case No.: 19-cv-00110-AJB-RNB

Plaintiff, ORDER: v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. Social Security, No. 23); Defendant. (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 15); AND

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 18.)

Presently before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff Kenneth Edward Maye’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for summary judgment; and (2) Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Defendant”) cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 15, 18.) The Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block for a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), which was issued on September 25, 2019. (Doc. No. 23.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court: (1) grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and (2) deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 10.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by October 9, 2019 and a reply to the objections no later than October 23, 2019. (/d.) 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[,]” and “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 617 (Oth 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; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; (3) DENIES Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED. || Dated: November 15, 2019 | □□ rz Le Hon. Anthony J.@Battaglia United States District Judge