Opinion
20-cv-1711-MMA (BGS)
04-25-2022
STEPHANIE M., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;
[DOC. NO. 15]
GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
[DOC. NO. 12]
DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND
[DOC. NO. 13]
REMANDING FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff Stephanie M. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security appeal challenging the denial of her application for social security disability insurance benefits. See Doc. No. 1. The Court referred all matters in this action to United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal for report and recommendation pursuant to section 636(b)(1)(B) of Title 28 of the United States Code and Civil Local Rule 72.1. See Doc. No. 7. On July 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 1. On August 9, 2021, Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi, Commissioner of Social Security, filed a cross motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 13. Judge Skomal has issued a detailed and well-reasoned report, recommending the Court deny Defendant's summary judgment motion, grant Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, and remand the case for further administrative proceedings. Doc. No. 15 (“Report and Recommendation”). Neither party has objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has expired.
Kilolo Kijakazi is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Kilolo Kijakazi is substituted for Andrew Saul as the defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be taken, pursuant to the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a report and recommendation, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the report and recommendation de novo. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district judge may nevertheless “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 Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006).
The Court has made a review and determination in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Upon due consideration, the Court ADOPTS Judge Skomal's Report and Recommendation, DENIES Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, the Court REMANI 2 further administrative proceedings 3 Report and Recommendation. Th 4 judgment accordingly and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.