White v. Saul

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: July 25, 2022
• Docket: 3:20-cv-02277
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL LOUIS W., Case No.: 20cv2277-LL-MSB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 21] 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg’s Report and 19 Recommendation (“R&R”) regarding the Joint Motion for Judicial Review of the Final 20 Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. ECF Nos. 20, 21. The R&R recommends 21 that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed, and that Judgment be entered reversing the 22 decision of the Commissioner and remanding the matter for further administrative 23 proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ECF No. 21. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 25 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 26 district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which 27 objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 28 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United 1 || States. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 2 ||617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only 3 satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 4 ||recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. 5 || Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206) (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 6 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate 7 ||\judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”’). 8 Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Berg’s R&R See 9 || Doc. No. 21 at 37 (objections due by July 22, 2022). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court 10 || finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 11 ||hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Berg’s Report and Recommendation. The case is remanded 12 || to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings as consistent with the R&R. 13 || This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file. 14 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: July 25, 2022 NO 16 DE | 17 Honorable Linda Lopez 8 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28