Opinion
22-cv-00695-DMS-MSB
09-08-2023
LISA D., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court
Pending before the Court is the Parties' joint motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 19.) On August 25, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg filed a Report and Recommendation for an order reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and remanding the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. (R. & R., ECF No. 20.) Judge Berg set September 6, 2023 as the deadline for the parties to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (R. & R. at 35.) No party filed an objection.
Lisa D. v. Kijakazi, No. 22-cv-00695-DMS-MSB, 2023 WL 5501215 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2023) (report and recommendation).
The district court reviewing a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security may enter a “judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing” the Commissioner's decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “[R]emand is proper where additional administrative proceedings could remedy defects” in the decision. Kail v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1496, 1497 (9th Cir. 1984). “The district judge must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,' and ‘may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.'” Campuzano v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-CV-721-WQH-WVG, 2021 WL 3848164 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2021) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). However, the district judge need not review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to which neither party objects. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”).
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the joint motion. The Court finds the Report and Recommendation to be correct, well-reasoned, and thorough, and adopts it in every respect.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the joint motion for summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff consistent with the findings and conclusions in the Report and Recommendation; REVERSES the decision of the Administrative Law Judge dated June 25, 2021 denying Plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income (Admin. R. at 12-29, ECF No. 10-2), which became final on March 14, 2022 upon the Appeals Council's denial of review (id. at 1-6); and REMANDS this matter to the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative action consistent with the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.