From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Michael W. U. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Aug 1, 2024
23cv0654-LL-BJC (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2024)

Opinion

23cv0654-LL-BJC

08-01-2024

MICHAEL W. U., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 17]

HONORABLE LINDA LOPEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) regarding the Joint Motion for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. ECF Nos. 13, 17. The R&R recommends that the Commissioner's decision be reversed, and that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding the matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ECF No. 17.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district court 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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206) (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Ferraro's R&R See ECF No. 17, at 13 (objections due by July 31, 2024). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Ferraro's Report and Recommendation. The case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings as consistent with the R&R. This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Michael W. U. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Aug 1, 2024
23cv0654-LL-BJC (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2024)
Case details for

Michael W. U. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL W. U., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Aug 1, 2024

Citations

23cv0654-LL-BJC (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2024)