Sampedro v. Kijakazi

Opinion

SLOANE S., Case No.: 21-cv-1043-MMA (MSB)

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, [Doc. No. 17] Defendant. REVERSING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY; AND [Doc. No. 16]

REMANDING FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

On June 1, 2021, Plaintiff Sloane S. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”) denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. See Doc. No. 1. The Court referred all matters arising in this social security appeal to United States Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg for report and recommendation pursuant to Section 636(b)(1)(B) of Title 28 of the United States Code, and Civil Local Rule 72.1. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); S.D. Cal. CivLR 72.1. On September 23, 2022, the parties filed a “Joint Motion for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.” See Doc. No. 16. On February 15, 2023, Judge Berg issued a thorough and well-reasoned report recommending that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision and remand the matter to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings. See Doc. No. 17 (“Report and Recommendation”). Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation. The time for filing objections has expired. The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district judge may nevertheless “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); see also Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006). The Court has made a review and determination in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Upon due consideration, the Court ADOPTS Judge Berg’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court REVERSES the Commissioner’s decision and REMANDS this matter to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Court’s Order and Judge Berg’s Report and Recommendation. l The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Dated: March 2, 2023 JM ; f Lu □ / Lp lo 5 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge