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