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)

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)