Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02361/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02361-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id 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

PAUL MOORE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv2361-LAB (KSC)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; AND

ORDER REMANDING TO SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FOR

FURTHER CONSIDERATION

vs.

CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Paul Moore appealed from the denial of his social security benefits. Pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Civil Local rules 72.1 and 72.2, this matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Karen Crawford for report and recommendation. Judge Crawford received briefing

and on February 10, 2016 issued her report and recommendation (the “R&R”),

recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be granted; Defendant’s crossmotion for summary judgment be denied; judgment be entered in Plaintiff’s favor; and this

matter be remanded to the Social Security Administration for further consideration by the

Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and for entry of a final

judgment. The R&R ordered that any objections be filed no later than 14 calendar days from

- 1 - 14cv2361

Case 3:14-cv-02361-LAB-KSC Document 23 Filed 02/26/16 Page 1 of 2
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

the date each party was served with the R&R. Because the parties were both served

electronically as soon as the R&R was docketed, the deadline for objections was February

24.

Neither party has filed objections, nor sought additional time in which to do so. A

district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on

dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge must determine de novo any

part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Id. "A judge

of the court 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). This section does

not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed. Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). The statute makes it clear that the district judge must

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made,

but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

banc).

The Court has reviewed the R&R, finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and Defendant’s cross-motion for summary

judgment is DENIED. This matter is ORDERED REMANDED to the Social Security

Administration for further consideration by the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence

of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and for entry of a final judgment. The Commissioner should refer to

the R&R for specific guidance. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and

against Defendant, and is directed to close the docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 26, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 14cv2361

Case 3:14-cv-02361-LAB-KSC Document 23 Filed 02/26/16 Page 2 of 2