Craig v. Berryhill

Filing 18

ORDER adopting 17 Report and Recommendation; granting 10 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 9/10/2020. (sjt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PATRICIA CRAIG,

Case No.: 19cv636 JM (JLB)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION; (2)
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND
(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,

15
16

Defendant.

17
18

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate

19

Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, filed on August 11, 2020, recommending that the court grant

20

Plaintiff Patricia Craig’s motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant Commissioner’s

21

cross-motion for summary judgment, and remand the case to the Social Security

22

Administration for further proceedings. (Doc. No. 17.)

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614,
1
19cv636 JM (JLB)

1

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

2

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

3

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbel v. United

4

States Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

5

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate

6

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

7

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s

8

R&R. (See Doc. No. 17 at 46 (objections due by August 25, 2020).) Having reviewed the

9

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

10

Accordingly, the court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s report and

11

recommendation; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 10);

12

and (3) DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 12). This

13

case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.

14

This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Date: September 10, 2020

17
18

______________________________

19

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo for

20

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller, United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
19cv636 JM (JLB)