Hepler v. Kijakazi

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CRAIG H.,1 Case No.: 22-cv-00800-AJB-LR Plaintiff, 12 ORDER: v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting 14 RECOMMENDATION; Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. (2) REVERSING DECISION OF THE 16 COMMISSIONER; and (4) REMANDING ACTION FOR 18 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (Doc. Nos. 16, 17) 21 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Craig H. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration Kilolo Kijakazi’s Joint Motion for Judicial Review of Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. No. 16.)

24 The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 17.) The R&R recommends reversing the decision Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), “[o]pinions by the court in [Social Security cases under 42 U.S.C. 1 the Commissioner denying benefits and remanding the matter back to the Commissioner ||for further administrative action. (Ud. at 48.) The parties were instructed to file written || objections to the R&R no later than August 4, 2023, and replies no later than August 11, || 2023. Id.) 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district || judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 8 “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. Remsing, || 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), 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 note to 1983 amendment; see || also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

14 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court 15 finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ||hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Rodriguez, Jr.’s R&R, (Doc. No. 17); ||(2) REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits to Plaintiff; and ||(3) REMANDS the case back to the Commissioner for further review pursuant to 42 |/U.S.C. § 405(g).

21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 ||Dated: August 17, 2023 © ¢ 23 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 24 United States District Judge