Opinion
20-cv-01432-AJB-BLM
01-06-2022
OSCAR J., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, [1]Defendant.
ORDER
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION;
(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
(3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; and
(4) REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (Doc. Nos. 19, 20, 25)
HON. ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Oscar Jenks' (“Plaintiff”) social security appeal. (Doc. No. 1.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 25.) The R&R recommends: (1) granting Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment; (2) denying Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment; and (3) reversing and remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for further review. (Id. at 16.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by January 5, 2022. (Id.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's R&R. 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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), 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(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment; see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
Neither party filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major's R&R, (Doc. No. 25); (2) GRANTS Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 19); (3) DENIES Defendant's cross-motion, (Doc. No. 20); and (4) REMANDS the case back to the Commissioner for further review in accordance with the R&R.
IT IS SO ORDERED.