Eldridge v. Berryhill

Filing 21

ORDER Adopting 19 Report and Recommendation; Denying Defendant's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 7/9/2018. (Copy mailed to SSA)(mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEVEN MICHAEL ELDRIDGE,

Case No.: 17-CV-497-JLS (BLM)

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION; DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

15

Defendants.

16

(ECF Nos. 15, 17, 19)

17
18

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and

19

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF Nos. 15, 17). Magistrate Judge Barbara

20

Major has issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R,” ECF No. 19), recommending

21

that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, Defendant’s Cross-Motion for

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Summary Judgment be denied, and that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the
Administrative Law Judge and remanding this matter for further administrative
proceedings.

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

underlying Administrative Record, the Court ADOPTS Judge Major’s Report and
Recommendation in its entirety.
BACKGROUND
Judge Major’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual and
1
17-CV-497-JLS (BLM)

1

procedural histories underlying the instant Motions for Summary Judgment. (See R&R 2–

2

10.)1 This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

3

LEGAL STANDARD

4

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

5

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

6

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report to which

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

but not otherwise.”).

17

ANALYSIS

18

In this present case, neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Major’s

19

R&R. (See R&R 25 (objections due by June 6, 2018).) Having reviewed the R&R, the

20

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

21

In this matter, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that Plaintiff was

22

not disabled as defined in the Social Security Act. (R&R 7 (citing Administrative Record,

23

(“AR”,) ECF No. 12, at 24–41.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff could work as a rental

24

clerk, ticket seller, or order clerk, and therefore was not disabled. (Id. (citing AR 34–35).)

25

The ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s testimony was not credible. Judge Major found “that

26

the ALJ failed to identify the specific statements Plaintiff made that the ALJ decided were

27
28

1

Pin citations refer to the CM/ECF page numbers electronically stamped at the top of each page.
2
17-CV-497-JLS (BLM)

1

not credible, and thus does not provide the necessary information for meaningful judicial

2

review.” (Id. at 12.) Judge Major found the ALJ “erred by failing to identify the testimony

3

he found not credible” so therefore, the ALJ’s conclusions are not supported by substantial

4

evidence. (Id. at 14.)

5

Further, Judge Major found that even if the ALJ had “adequately specified the

6

testimony he found not believable,” the ALJ’s proffered reasons for negating Plaintiff’s

7

testimony fail to meet the clear and convincing standard. (Id.) Judge Major analyzed the

8

reasons provided by the ALJ in finding Plaintiff less than fully credible. (Id. at 14–24.)

9

Judge Major concluded that none of the reasons “constitute a clear and convincing basis”

10

for the ALJ’s ultimate determination. Judge Major therefore recommends reversing the

11

decision of the ALJ.

12

The Court finds no clear error in Judge Major’s findings and recommendations.

13

Further, the Court agrees remanding for further administrative proceedings is appropriate

14

because additional proceedings could remedy the defects in the ALJ’s decision and

15

enhance the administrative record. (Id. at 25.)

16

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

17

Recommendation; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES

18

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

19

Social Security Administration for further proceedings.

20

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

21
22

Because this concludes the

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 9, 2018

23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17-CV-497-JLS (BLM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
17-CV-497-JLS (BLM)