Varao v. Berryhill

Filing 29

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation; and Order Reversing the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge and Remanding for Further Proceedings. The Court has reviewed the R&R (Dkt. No. 28 ), finds it to be correct, and adopts it. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 22 ) is granted and Defendant's cross-motion (Dkt. No. 24 ) is denied. The administrative law judge's decision is reversed and this case is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings to address and correct the errors the R&R has identified. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 9/18/2018. (jdt) (Main Document 29 replaced on 9/19/2018) (jdt). (Certified copy of this order mailed to SSA) (jdt).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEPHANIE RAE VARAO,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

15
16
17

Defendant.

Case No.: 17CV2463-LAB (JLB)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION; AND
ORDER REVERSING THE
DECISION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
AND REMANDING FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Stephanie Rae Varao filed her complaint, seeking review of denial
of social security disability benefits. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge
Robert N. Block for report and recommendation.

After receiving briefing, on

August 3, Judge Block issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R”). It found
that the administrative law judge had erred in denying benefits, and recommended
reversing that judge’s decision and remanding for further proceedings.
The deadline for objecting to the R&R has passed, and no objections were
filed. A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge
must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has

1
17CV2463-LAB (JLB)

1

been properly objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify,

2

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

3

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This section does not require some lesser review by

4

the district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–

5

50 (1985). The “statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the

6

magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made,

7

but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

8

2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

9

The Court has reviewed the R&R, finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it.

10

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendant’s cross-

11

motion is DENIED. The administrative law judge’s decision is REVERSED and

12

this case is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further

13

proceedings to address and correct the errors the R&R has identified.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 18, 2018

17
18
19

Hon. Larry Alan Burns
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17CV2463-LAB (JLB)