Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02073/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02073-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD L. LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12cv2073 AJB (RBB)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No.

14);

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 10);

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 11); AND

(4) REMANDING FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS, (Doc. No. 10).

On August 22, 2012, Plaintiff Richard L. Lewis (“Plaintiff”) filed this appeal 

against Defendant Michael J. Astrue, then Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”), pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g).1

 (Doc. No. 1.) The appeal sought judicial review of an adverse final decision

entered on June 22, 2011, which denied Plaintiff disability insurance benefits. (Id.) On

January 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment or remand, (Doc. No.

1

 After the case was filed Carolyn W. Colvin replaced Michael J. Astrue as the Commissioner of Social Security. Colvin is therefore substituted for her predecessor pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

1 12cv2073 AJB (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-02073-AJB-RBB Document 15 Filed 08/21/13 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10), and on February 12, 2013, Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment,

(Doc. No. 11). Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendant’s motion. 

On August 5, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks issued a

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).2

 (Doc. No. 14.) The R&R recommended that the

Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, deny

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings. 

(Doc. No. 14.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R no later

than August 19, 2013, and any replies to objections no later than August 26, 2013. (Id. at

47:22-26.) The parties were further advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal. See Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). As of the date of this order, neither party has filed an

objection to the R&R. 

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 report and recommendation. 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

finding 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 timely 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 Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

Here, despite being represented by counsel, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant has

filed timely objections to the R&R. Therefore, having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds

the report thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its

2

 This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Brooks by this Court on January 30, 2013.

2 12cv2073 AJB (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-02073-AJB-RBB Document 15 Filed 08/21/13 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

entirety, (Doc. No. 14), GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion

for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 10), DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion for summary

judgment, (Doc. No. 11), and REMANDS the case to the Social Security Administration

for proceedings consistent with the R&R, (Doc. No. 10).3

 Upon remand, the Clerk of

Court will close the district court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 21, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

3 A district court may remand a Social Security disability decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Hoa Hong Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 605 (9th Cir. 2007). That provision states, “The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of

the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g). “A sentence-four remand is essentially a determination that the Commissioner erred in denying benefits.” Havrylovich v. Astrue, No. 09-1113-HA, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7187, at *19 (D. Or. Jan. 25, 2011) (citing Hoa

Hong Van, 483 F.3d at 605).

3 12cv2073 AJB (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-02073-AJB-RBB Document 15 Filed 08/21/13 Page 3 of 3