Opinion
Case No. 20-cv-00911-BAS-LL
05-21-2021
MANUEL A. H., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Defendant.
ORDER:
(1) APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN ITS ENTIRETY (ECF No. 21);
(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 18);
(3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 19); AND
(4) REMANDING ACTION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
Plaintiff Manuel A. H. commenced this action under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the Social Security Administration's denial of Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits. The Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez, who issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on April 15, 2021, recommending that this Court: (1) grant Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) deny Defendant's Cross-Motion for Sumary Judgment; and (3) reverse the decision of the Commissioner and remand the matter for further administrative proceedings. (R&R 27:26-28:2.) The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on April 29, 2021. (Id. 28:7-8.) Both parties are represented by counsel, but to date, neither party has filed any objections.
I. ANALYSIS
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are made, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), but where no objections are filed, the district court has no obligation to review the magistrate judge's report, see United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) ("Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct."); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.").
In the social-security context, the district court's jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the Social Security Administration's denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A district court may overturn a decision to deny benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if the decision is based on legal error. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995); Magallenes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). The Ninth Circuit defines substantial evidence as "more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039. Determinations of credibility, resolution of conflicts in medical testimony, and all other ambiguities are to be resolved by the administrative law judge ("ALJ"). See id.; Magallenes, 881 F.2d at 750. The decision of the ALJ will be upheld if the evidence is "susceptible to more than one rational interpretation." Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1040.
In this case, no objections have been filed by the deadline for filing objections, which fell on April 29, 2021. Neither party has requested additional time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Lopez's reasoning is sound and correct in recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, and judgment be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings. Therefore, the Court approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
II. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF No. 21), GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18), and DENIES Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19). The Court REMANDS this action for further proceedings consistent with this Order. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 21, 2021
/s/ _________
Hon. Cynthia Bashant
United States District Judge