Opinion
Case No.: 17-cv-0614-AJB-KSC
04-05-2018
Aaron Theodore Nelson, Plaintiff, v. Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 19);
(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (Doc. No. 13);
(3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 14); and
(4) REMANDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER.
Presently before the Court is plaintiff's social security appeal. (Doc. No. 1.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). (Doc. No. 19.) The R&R recommends: (1) granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the extent plaintiff seeks remand; (2) denying defendant's cross-motion; and (3) remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for further review. (Id. at 25.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by February 22, 2018. (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 the 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 Crawford's R&R, (Doc. No. 19); (2) GRANTS plaintiff's summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 13); (3) DENIES defendant's cross-motion, (Doc. No. 14); and (4) REMANDS the case back to the commissioner for further review in accordance with the R&R.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 5, 2018
/s/_________
Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
United States District Judge