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)
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?