Rugo R. v. O'Malley

Full title: HUGO R.,[1] Plaintiff, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY, Commissioner of the Social…

Court: United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Aug 23, 2024

23-cv-1222-JES-LR (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2024)

Opinion

23-cv-1222-JES-LR

08-23-2024

HUGO R.,[1] Plaintiff, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,[2] Defendant.

Honorable Janies E. Simmons Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) REVERSING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER; AND

(3) REMANDING ACTION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

[ECF NOS. 16, 18]

Honorable Janies E. Simmons Jr. United States District Judge

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Hugo R. and Defendant Commissioner of the Social Security Administration Martin O'Malley's Joint Motion for Judicial Review of Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. ECF No. 16. The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). ECF No. 18. The R&R recommends reversing the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for further administrative action. Id. at 40. The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by August 9, 2024, and replies by August 16, 2024. Id. at 40-41.

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 (9^th 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 (9^th Cir. 2003).

Neither party has 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 Rodriguez' R&R; (2) REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits to Plaintiff; and (3) REMANDS the case back to the Commissioner for further review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.