Bartle v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAD B., Case No.: 20cv1431-CAB-MSB Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 13] REGARDING JOINT MOTION FOR KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of

REVIEW [Doc. No. 12]

Social Security,

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg, filed on November 29, 2021, regarding the Joint Motion for Judicial Review [Doc. No. 12], recommending that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision, and enter judgment reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.§405(g). [Doc. No. 13.]

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 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 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). However, in the absence of timely objection, 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 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003)(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”’).

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Berg’s R&R. Doc. No. 13 at 20 (objections due by December 13, 2021).] Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Berg’s report and recommendation [Doc. No. 13]; (2) REVERSES the Commissioner’s decision; and (3) } REMANDS this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.8405(g).

This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2021 € □

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge