Opinion
3:23-cv-01596-BEN-JLB
08-19-2024
DANIEL O., Plaintiff, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,[1] Defendant.
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION;
(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND
(3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
[Docket Nos. 10, 12, 14]
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Daniel O. filed this action for judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment seeking reversal of the ALJ's decision. ECF No. 10. Defendant filed a cross motion for summary judgment seeking to uphold the ALJ's determination. ECF No. 12. On July 31, 2024, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt issued a thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion. ECF No. 14 (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Burkhardt found the ALJ erred by inadequately addressing Plaintiff's physical symptom testimony. R&R at 32. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by August 15, 2024.
Neither party has filed any objections.
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). However, a district judge need not review the magistrate judge's findings de novo if no objections are made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005).
Here, the Court need not conduct de novo review as neither party made any objection. The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Accordingly, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's final decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with the findings presented in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter a final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and against Defendant, reversing the final decision of the Commissioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.