Schultz v. Saul

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MARIE S., Case No. 20-cv-2196-MMA (BGS)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 11 v. RECOMMENDATION

12 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of [Doc. No. 25] Social Security, 13

AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER 14 Defendant. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 15 [Doc. No. 24] 16

18 On November 10, 2020, Plaintiff Marie S. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security 19 appeal challenging the denial of an application for disability insurance benefits. See Doc. 20 No. 1. The Court referred all matters arising in this appeal to the assigned magistrate 21 judge for report and recommendation pursuant to Section 636(b)(1)(B) of Title 28 of the 22 United States Code, and Civil Local Rule 72.1. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); S.D. Cal. 23 CivLR 72.1. Judge Skomal issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report recommending 24 25

26 1 Kilolo Kijakazi is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Therefore, pursuant to Federal 27 Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Kilolo Kijakazi is substituted for Andrew Saul as the defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be taken, pursuant to the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social 28 1 || that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and remand the matter for 2 || further administrative proceedings. See Doc. No. 25 (“Report and Recommendation’). 3 || Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation. The time for filing objections 4 ||has expired. 5 The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and 6 || recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 7 |\|28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a report and recommendation 8 || R&R”), “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those 9 || portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas 10 || v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court 11 ||need not review the R&R de novo. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th 12 || Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en 13 ||/banc). A district judge may nevertheless “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 14 || the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 15 || see also Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006). 16 The Court has made a review and determination in accordance with the 17 requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Upon due consideration, the 18 ||Court ADOPTS Judge Skomal’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. 19 || Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this matter for further administrative proceedings 20 || consistent with this Court’s Order and Judge Skomal’s Report and Recommendation. 21 || The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and close the 22 || case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: March 24, 2023 25 pjJMiathet Cu - /Mipblr 26 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 07 United States District Judge 28