Rodriguez Soto v. Kijakazi

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 Dora R.S., Case No.: 23-cv-00636-AJB-SBC Plaintiff, 12 ORDER: v. [13] (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of 14 RECOMMENDATION; Social Security,1 15 Defendant. (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 16 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; [17] 18 (3) REVERSING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER; and [19] 20 (4) REMANDING ACTION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS [21] 22 (Doc. Nos. 13, 16) [23] Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Dora R.S.’s social security appeal. (Doc. [24] No. 13.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu for a Report and [27] 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Commissioner O’Malley is automatically substituted [28] 1 ||Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 16.) The R&R recommends granting □□□□□□□□□□□ 2 ||motion for summary judgment, reversing the decision of the Commissioner denying 3 benefits, and remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for further administrative 4 ||action. (/d. at 15.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R no 5 || later than August 5, 2024, and replies no later than August 12, 2024. U/d.) 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) set forth a district 7 || judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 8 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 9 “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 10 || made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 11 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need 12 || only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 13 |}recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment; see 14 || also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 15 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court 16 finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 17 ||hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Chu’s R&R, (Doc. No. 16); (2) GRANTS 18 || Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 13); (3) REVERSES the decision of 19 Commissioner denying benefits to Plaintiff; and (4) REMANDS the case back to the 20 ||Commissioner for further review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). [21] 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: August 14, 2024 © 24 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 25 United States District Judge