Moore v. Saul

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 25, 2022
• Docket: 3:20-cv-01608
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIE R. M., Case No.: 20cv1608-LL-MDD

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 19]; 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,1 15 (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Defendant. MOTION FOR SUMMARY 16 JUDGMENT [ECF No. 16]; AND 17 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 18 CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 19 JUDGMENT [ECF No. 17]

20 21 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 22 Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin, filed on October 26, 2021, recommending that the 23 24 25 26 1 Kilolo Kijakazi became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on July 9, 2021. 27 Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to modify the docket by substituting Kilolo Kijakazi for Andrew Saul as 28 1 |}Court grant Plaintiff's Julie R. M.’s motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant’s 2 || cross-motion for summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings. ECF No. 19. 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 4 ||court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 5 || district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which 6 || objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 7 ||recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United 8 || States. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 9 ||617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only 10 satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 11 ||recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. 12 || Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206) (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 13 1/328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)([T]he district judge must review the magistrate 14 ||judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 15 Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R 16 || See Doc. No. 19 at 20 (objections due by November 9, 2021). Having reviewed the R&R, 17 || the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, 18 Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Dembin’s report and recommendation; (2) 19 || GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment; (3) DENIES Defendant’s cross- 20 motion for summary judgment; and (4) REMANDS the case for further proceedings. 21 This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file. 22 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: January 25, 2022 NO 24 DE | 25 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 27 28