Opinion
CASE NO. 15cv2119-WQH (DHB)
08-25-2016
IVAN ALEX SOTOMAYOR, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER :
The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) issued by United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that this court grant Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 9), deny Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10), and remand this case for further proceedings.
On August 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13). The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ committed legal error in implicitly rejecting the medical opinion of one of Plaintiff's treating physicians, and that this error infected the residual functional capacity determination. The Report and Recommendation states that any objections to the Report and Recommendation must be filed "no later than August 18 , 2016 ." Id. at 26. The Report and Recommendation states, "[t]he parties are advised that any failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court's order." Id. at 27.
The docket reflects that no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.
II. Review of the Report and Recommendation
The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
After review of the Report and Recommendation, the written opinion of the ALJ, the administrative record, and the submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ committed legal error in implicitly rejecting the medical opinion of Plaintiff's treating physician, that this error infected the residual functional capacity determination, and that this error requires remand for further proceedings.
III. Conclusion
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) is adopted in its entirety; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 9) is granted; and (3) Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) is denied. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and remand this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the order. DATED: August 25, 2016
/s/_________
WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge