Jones v. Social Security Admin

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TARA J., Case No.: 19-CV-2288 TWR (AGS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT & v. RECOMMENDATION, (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting MOTION FOR SUMMARY Commissioner of Social Security, 15 JUDGMENT, Defendant. (3) REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER, AND 17 (4) REMANDING ACTION TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION (ECF Nos. 27, 32) 22 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Tara J.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Mot.,” ECF No. 27). Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler has issued a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Summary-Judgment Motion (ECF No. 27) (“R&R,” ECF No. 32), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion and remand this action for further administrative proceedings. Having carefully reviewed the Parties’ arguments, Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R, the underlying administrative record, and the law, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R in its entirety, GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion, REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, and REMANDS this matter for further administrative action.

3 BACKGROUND 4 Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual and procedural history underlying the instant Motion. (See R&R at 1.) This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

7 LEGAL STANDARD 8 When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 12 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

20 ANALYSIS 21 As of the date of this Order, the Court has received no objections to Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R. (See R&R at 5 (ordering that any objections be filed no later than September 8, 2021).) Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well- reasoned, and contains no clear error. Further, the Court agrees that remanding this action for further administrative proceedings is appropriate because additional proceedings could remedy the defects in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and enhance the administrative record. (See id. at 4–5.) The Court therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R in its entirety.

1 CONCLUSION 2 In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R ||(ECF No. 32), GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 27), || REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner, and REMANDS this matter for further || administrative action.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2021 | Odd (2 re Honorable Todd W. Robinson 10 United States District Court 1]