Silva v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JULIO S., Case No.: 23-cv-02324-AJB-DEB Plaintiff, 12 ORDER: v. 13 (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 14 RECOMMENDATION; SECURITY,

15 Defendant. (2) REMANDING ACTION FOR

17 (Doc. Nos. 17, 18) 18 19 Presently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Judicial Review of 20 Plaintiff Julio S.’s (“Plaintiff”) request that the Court review the Commissioner’s denial of 21 his claim for disability benefits. (Doc. No. 17.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate 22 Judge Daniel E. Butcher for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 18.) The 23 R&R recommends granting Plaintiff’s request for remand, remanding the matter back to 24 the Commissioner for further proceedings, and entering judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. (Id. 25 at 13.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R no later than 26 February 18, 2025, and replies no later than February 25, 2025. (Id.) 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 28 judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 1 de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 2 “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 3 ||made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 4 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need 5 || only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 6 || recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment; see 7 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 8 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court 9 finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 10 ||hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Butcher’s R&R, (Doc. No. 18); (2) GRANTS 11 Plaintiff's request for remand, (Doc. No. 17); and (3) REMANDS the case back to the 12 ||Commissioner for further review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 13 15 Dated: February 26, 2025 © 16 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28