Collings v. Kijakazi

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TIMOTHY C.,1 Case No.: 23-cv-1076-JES-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of RECOMMENDATION; the Social Security Administration,2 Defendant. (2) REVERSING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER; and (3) REMANDING ACTION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS [ECF Nos. 16, 17] Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Timothy C. and Defendant Commissioner of the Social Security Administration Martin O’Malley’s Joint Motion for Judicial Review 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), “[o]pinions by the Court in [Social Security cases under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)] will refer to any non-government parties by using only their first name and last initial.”

2 Plaintiff named Kilolo Kijakazi, who was the Acting Commissioner of Social Security when he filed his Complain on June 30, 2023, as a Defendant in this action. See ECF No. 1 at 1. Martin O’Malley is now the Commissioner of Social Security, and he is automatically substituted as a party pursuant to 1 Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. ECF No. 16. The Court ||referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Allison Goddard for a Report and ||Recommendation (“R&R”). ECF No. 17. The R&R recommends reversing the decision || of the Commissioner denying benefits and remanding the matter back to the |}Commissioner for further administrative action. /d. at 30. The parties were instructed to || file written objections to the R&R by August 20, 2024. Id. at 31.

7 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[,]’” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 11 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United || States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9" 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 15 committee note to 1983 amendment; see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 16 1114, 1121 (9" Cir. 2003).

17 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the || Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the || Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Goddard’s R&R; (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).

22 IT IS SO ORDERED.

54 Dated: August 23, 2024 “4 we Se 4, 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge