Sampedro v. Kijakazi

[8] 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [11] 12 SLOANE S., Case No.: 21-cv-1043-MMA (MSB) 13 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 v. RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 15 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting 16 Commissioner of Social Security, [Doc. No. 17] Defendant. 17 REVERSING DECISION OF THE 18 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY; AND [19] 20 [Doc. No. 16] 21 REMANDING FOR FURTHER 22 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS [23] 24 On June 1, 2021, Plaintiff Sloane S. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 25 § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social 26 Security’s (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”) denial of disability insurance benefits and 27 supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. See 28 Doc. No. 1. The Court referred all matters arising in this social security appeal to United 1 States Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg for report and recommendation pursuant to 2 Section 636(b)(1)(B) of Title 28 of the United States Code, and Civil Local Rule 72.1. 3 See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B); S.D. Cal. CivLR 72.1. On September 23, 2022, the parties 4 filed a “Joint Motion for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of 5 Social Security.” See Doc. No. 16. On February 15, 2023, Judge Berg issued a thorough 6 and well-reasoned report recommending that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s 7 decision and remand the matter to the Social Security Administration for further 8 administrative proceedings. See Doc. No. 17 (“Report and Recommendation”). Neither 9 party objected to the Report and Recommendation. The time for filing objections has 10 expired. 11 The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and 12 recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and [13] 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] 14 judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 15 [Report and Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); see 16 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 , 149–50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district 17 court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Wang v. Masaitis, [18] 416 F.3d 992 , 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 , 19 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district judge may nevertheless “accept, reject, or 20 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate 21 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); see also Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080 , 1088 22 (S.D. Cal. 2006). 23 The Court has made a review and determination in accordance with the 24 requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Upon due consideration, the 25 Court ADOPTS Judge Berg’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court 26 REVERSES the Commissioner’s decision and REMANDS this matter to the Social 27 Security Administration for further administrative proceedings consistent with this 28 Court’s Order and Judge Berg’s Report and Recommendation. l The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and close 2 || the case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: March 2, 2023 JM ; f Lu □ / Lp lo 5 5 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge