Crespo Agundes v. Colvin

Filing 28

ORDER: (1) Granting 27 Report and Recommendation; (2) Granting Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Denying Defendant's 20 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; Remanding Case for Further Proceedings. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 8/29/2017.(knb)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSALINA CRESPO AGUNDES, Case No.: 3:16-cv-01505-BEN-JLB Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER: (1) GRANTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 27); NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 16); Defendant. 16 17 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 20); and 18 19 20 (4) REMANDING CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 21 22 Plaintiff Rosalina Crespo Agundes filed this action seeking judicial review of the 23 24 Social Security Commissioner’s1 denial of her application for disability insurance 25 26 27 1 28 When Plaintiff initiated this action, Carolyn W. Colvin was serving as the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Nancy A. Berryhill is now serving 1 3:16-cv-01505-BEN-JLB 1 benefits. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, and Defendant filed a cross- 2 motion for summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. 3 On August 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler issued a thoughtful 4 and thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant 5 Plaintiff’s motion, deny Defendant’s motion, and remand the case so the Administrative 6 Law Judge (“ALJ”) can make specific findings on Plaintiff’s language capabilities and 7 the impact they have on her ability to work. See Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 847 8 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that when an ALJ “rel[ies] on a job description in the Dictionary 9 of Titles,” the ALJ must “definitively explain” the impact of the claimant’s illiteracy “on 10 her ability to find and perform a similar job”). Objections to the Report and 11 Recommendation were due August 28, 2017. Neither party has filed any objections. 12 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 13 magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 14 § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 15 recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 16 However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 17 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 18 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also 19 Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 20 the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 21 that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 22 The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 23 Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff’s motion for 24 summary judgment is GRANTED. (ECF No. 16). Defendant’s cross-motion for 25 summary judgment is DENIED. (ECF No. 20). The case is REMANDED so the ALJ 26 27 28 as the Acting Commissioner. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Berryhill is automatically substituted as a party. 2 3:16-cv-01505-BEN-JLB 1 can make specific findings regarding Plaintiff’s language capabilities and the impact they 2 have on her ability to work. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: August 29, 2017 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 3:16-cv-01505-BEN-JLB

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?