Schuh v. O'Malley

Opinion

RICHARD F.S., Case No.: 3:23-cv-00812-RBM-SBC

Plaintiff, ORDER: v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of (2) VACATING THE ALJ’S Social Security DECISION and Defendant. (3) REMANDING FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE

[Docs. 12, 19] Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Steven B. Chu, filed on August 9, 2024, (Doc. 19) on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 12). The R&R recommends the Court vacate the decision of the Commissioner and remand for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 19.) The deadline for filing objections to the R&R, August 23, 2024 (Doc. 19 at 18) has passed and neither party has filed any objections. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, 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 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.) (emphasis in original). Here, neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Chu’s R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Chu’s R&R on the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 19 (R&R), 12 (Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment)); (2) VACATES the Commissioner’s decision; and (3) REMANDS this matter for further administrative proceedings. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Dated: August 26, 2024 Fe Ba Gs ? L □ a1 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE