Summary
holding that "remand is appropriate for the ALJ to provide the appropriate res judicata consideration to prior finding"
Summary of this case from Nichols v. SaulOpinion
CASE NO. 13-CV-1189 W (DHB)
08-01-2014
WILLIAM TAYLOR SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 20], (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION [DOC. 14], (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION [DOC. 15], AND (4) REMANDING CASE
On May 20, 2013, Plaintiff William Taylor Scott filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's decision denying his claim for disability benefits. The matter was referred to the Honorable David H. Bartick, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
On June 27, 2014, Judge Bartick issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff's summary-judgment motion, deny Defendant's summary-judgment motion, and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings consistent with the Report. (See Report [Doc. 20], 30:3-6.) The Report also ordered any objections filed by July 28, 2014. (Id. at 30:10-12.) To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to file an objection.
A district court's duties concerning a magistrate judge's report and recommendation and a respondent's objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(holding that 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c) "makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise")(emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Arizona 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge's Report). This rule of law is well established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See 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.")(emphasis added) (citing Renya-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopted Report without review because neither party filed objections to the Report despite the opportunity to do so, "accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety."); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).
The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Bartick's recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 20] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's summary-judgment motion [Doc. 14], DENIES Defendant's summary-judgment motion [Doc. 15], and REMANDS the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the Report. Upon remand, the district court clerk shall close the district court case file.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 1, 2014
/s/_________
Hon. Thomas J. Whelan
United States District Judge