Jenks v. Saul ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OSCAR J., Case No.: 20-cv-01432-AJB-BLM Plaintiff, 12 ORDER: v. 13 (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting 14 RECOMMENDATION; Commissioner of Social Security,1 15 Defendant. (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 16 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 17 18 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS- MOTION FOR SUMMARY 19 JUDGMENT; and 20 (4) REMANDING FOR FURTHER 21 PROCEEDINGS 22 (Doc. Nos. 19, 20, 25) 23 24 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Oscar Jenks’ (“Plaintiff”) social security 25 appeal. (Doc. No. 1.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major 26 27 1 Kilolo Kijakazi became Acting Commissioner of Social Security on July 9, 2021 and is therefore 28 1 ||for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 25.) The R&R recommends: 2 ||(1) granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; (2) denying Defendant’s cross- 3 ||motion for summary judgment; and (3) reversing and remanding the matter back to the 4 ||Commissioner for further review. U/d. at 16.) The parties were instructed to file written 5 || objections to the R&R by January 5, 2022. (/d.) 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 7 judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 8 ||a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 9 “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 10 || made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 11 || 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need 12 || only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 13 ||recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment; see 14 || also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 15 Neither party filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court 16 |/ finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court 17 ||hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major’s R&R, (Doc. No. 25); (2) GRANTS 18 || Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 19); (3) DENIES Defendant’s cross- 19 || motion, (Doc. No. 20); and (4) REMANDS the case back to the Commissioner for further 20 || review in accordance with the R&R. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: January 6, 2022 © ¢ 24 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28