Lenz v. Colvin

Filing 19

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 11/20/2017. (mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM T. LENZ,

Case No.: 16-CV-1755-JLS (PCL)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

15

(ECF No. 18)

Defendant.

16
17
18

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis’s Report and

19

Recommendation, (“R&R”, ECF No. 18). Judge Lewis recommends the Court grant

20

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary

21

Judgment, and remand the matter to the Social Security Administration for further

22

proceedings.

23

underlying Administrative Record, the Court ADOPTS Judge Lewis’s Report and

24

Recommendation in its entirety.

25

Having reviewed the Parties’ motions, Judge Lewis’s R&R, and the

LEGAL STANDARD

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district

27

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The

28

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report to which
1
16-CV-1755-JLS (PCL)

1

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

2

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United

3

States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614,

4

617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only

5

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

6

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment

7

(citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United

8

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must

9

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made,

10

but not otherwise.”).

11

ANALYSIS

12

In the present case, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge

13

Lewis’s R&R. (See R&R 31 (objections due by October 31, 2017).) Having reviewed the

14

R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error.

15

In this matter, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) concluded Plaintiff is not

16

disabled because he has the residual functional capacity to perform “light work” subject to

17

certain limitations. (R&R 3.) In his R&R, Judge Lewis determined the ALJ erred in this

18

decision. The Court agrees the ALJ’s determination failed to address various professional

19

opinions of treating and examining physicians regarding the type and severity of issues

20

troubling Plaintiff’s left leg and spine. (Id. at 22–23, 25.) The ALJ’s determination did

21

not address various doctors’ opinions that contradict the ALJ’s conclusion, let alone give

22

“specific and legitimate” reasons for rejecting the opinions. (Id. at 28 (quoting Marsh v.

23

Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 1172–73 (9th Cir. 2015).) The failure to do constitutes error.

24

Furthermore, the Court agrees remanding for further proceedings is appropriate so that the

25

Commissioner may evaluate Plaintiff’s disability in light of all of the medical records

26

before it. (Id. at 30.)

27

Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lewis’s Report and

28

Recommendation; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES
2
16-CV-1755-JLS (PCL)

1

Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) REMANDS the case to the

2

Social Security Administration for further proceedings.

3

litigation in this matter, the Clerk SHALL close the file.

4
5

Because this concludes the

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 20, 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
16-CV-1755-JLS (PCL)