Taylor v. Saul

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 18 ]; Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 13 ]; and Remanding for Further Administrative Proceedings. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 9/15/2022. (tcf)

Download PDF
Case 3:21-cv-00556-MMA-JLB Document 19 Filed 09/15/22 PageID.828 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JAMES T., Case No. 21-cv-556-MMA (JLB) Plaintiff, 10 11 v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; 12 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security, [Doc. No. 18] 13 Defendant.1 14 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 15 [Doc. No. 13] 16 AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 17 18 19 20 On March 30, 2021, Plaintiff James T. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security appeal 21 challenging the denial of an application for supplemental security income benefits. See 22 Doc. No. 1. The Court referred all matters arising in this appeal to the assigned 23 magistrate judge for report and recommendation pursuant to Section 636(b)(1)(B) of Title 24 28 of the United States Code, and Civil Local Rule 72.1. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 25 26 27 28 1 Kilolo Kijakazi is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Kilolo Kijakazi is substituted for Andrew Saul as the defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be taken, pursuant to the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). -1- 21-cv-556-MMA (JLB) Case 3:21-cv-00556-MMA-JLB Document 19 Filed 09/15/22 PageID.829 Page 2 of 2 1 S.D. Cal. CivLR 72.1. Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment. See Doc. No. 13. 2 Judge Burkhardt has issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report recommending that the 3 Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and remand the matter for further 4 administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Doc. 5 No. 18. Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation. The time for filing 6 objections has expired. 7 The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and 8 recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 9 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a report and recommendation 10 (“R&R”), “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those 11 portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas 12 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need 13 not review the R&R de novo. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 14 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 15 A district judge may nevertheless “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 16 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see 17 also Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006). 18 The Court has made a review and determination in accordance with the 19 requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Upon due consideration, the 20 Court ADOPTS Judge Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation and GRANTS 21 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this 22 matter for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Court’s Order and 23 Judge Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of 24 Court to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: September 15, 2022 _______________________________________ HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge -2- 21-cv-556-MMA (JLB)

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?