Rodriguez Soto v. Kijakazi

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Dora R.S., Case No.: 23-cv-00636-AJB-SBC Plaintiff, 12 ORDER: v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of 14 RECOMMENDATION; Social Security,1 15 Defendant. (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 16 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 18 (3) REVERSING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER; and 20 (4) REMANDING ACTION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 22 (Doc. Nos. 13, 16) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Dora R.S.’s social security appeal. (Doc.

No. 13.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu for a Report and Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Commissioner O’Malley is automatically substituted ||Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 16.) The R&R recommends granting □□□□□□□□□□□ ||motion for summary judgment, reversing the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits, and remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for further administrative ||action. (/d. at 15.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R no || later than August 5, 2024, and replies no later than August 12, 2024. U/d.)

6 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[,]” 9 “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, 11 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).

15 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court 16 finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ||hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Chu’s R&R, (Doc. No. 16); (2) GRANTS || Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 13); (3) REVERSES the decision of 19 Commissioner denying benefits to Plaintiff; and (4) REMANDS the case back to the ||Commissioner for further review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

22 IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated: August 14, 2024 © 24 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 25 United States District Judge