Lenz v. Colvin

Filing 19

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

Download PDF
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)

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?