Truong v. Berryhill

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TRAI TRUONG, Case No.: 18cv1660-MMA (MSB) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 12 [Doc. No. 21] Defendant.

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 14 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; [Doc. No. 14] DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS- MOTION FOR SUMMARY 18 JUDGMENT; [Doc. No. 17] REMANDING ACTION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 23 On July 20, 2018, Plaintiff Trai Truong filed this social security appeal challenging the denial of an application for disability insurance benefits. See Doc. No. 1. The Court referred all matters arising in this social security appeal to the assigned magistrate judge for report and recommendation pursuant to Section 636(b)(1)(B) of Title 28 of the United States Code, and Civil Local Rule 72.1. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); S.D. Cal. CivLR 72.1. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. See Doc. Nos. 14, 17.

1 || Judge Berg has issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report recommending that the Court || grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant’s motion for summary ||judgment, and remand the matter to the Social Security Administration for further ||administrative proceedings. See Doc. No. 21. Neither party objected to the Report and || Recommendation. The time for filing objections has expired.

6 The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 8 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a report and recommendation || R&R”), “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those || portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas 11 Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need 12 review the R&R de novo. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 13 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

14 district judge may nevertheless “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the || findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see 16 Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006).

17 The Court has made a review and determination in accordance with the || requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Upon due consideration, the ||Court ADOPTS Judge Berg’s Report and Recommendation, GRANTS Plaintiffs ||motion for summary judgment, and DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary ||judgment. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this matter to the Social Security || Administration for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Court’s Order 23 Judge Berg’s Report and Recommendation. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court || to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 || DATE: August 20, 2019 LMaddik MM - hiltr 7 HON. ICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge