Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03096/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03096-2/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

16-CV-3096 JLS (BGS)

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

PENNY LEE KREBS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-CV-3096 JLS (BGS)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (3) 

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND 

(4) REMANDING CASE

(ECF Nos. 20, 22, 25)

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court (1) grant Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment, (2) deny Defendant’s1 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, and (3) 

remand the case for further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 25.) No party filed an 

objection or a reply to Judge Skomal’s R&R. For the following reasons, the Court (1) 

ADOPTS Judge Skomal’s R&R in its entirety; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 13); (3) DENIES Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary 

 

1 This action was previously entitled Krebs v. Colvin. However, Defendant Colvin has since been replaced 

as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration by Ms. Nancy A. Berryhill. Accordingly, the 

Court substitutes Ms. Berryhill as Defendant, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

Case 3:16-cv-03096-JLS-BGS Document 26 Filed 03/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-CV-3096 JLS (BGS)

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

Judgment, (ECF No. 14); and (4) REMANDS this case to the agency for further 

proceedings.

BACKGROUND

Judge Skomal’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual and 

procedural histories underlying the instant Motions for Summary Judgment. (See R&R 3–

5.)2 This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

court’s duties regarding a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court 

“shall 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)(c); see also 

United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 

614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). In the absence of a timely objection, however, “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 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. 

Dist. Court, 510 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s 

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 

ANALYSIS

Objections were due March 7, 2018 and replies were due March 14, 2018. (R&R 

22.) As discussed, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed an objection or a reply to Judge 

Skomal’s R&R. And, after review of the moving papers and Judge Skomal’s R&R, the 

Court finds “that there is no clear error on the face of the record” and thus the Court may 

“accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 

 

2 Pin citations to docketed material refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each 

page.

Case 3:16-cv-03096-JLS-BGS Document 26 Filed 03/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

16-CV-3096 JLS (BGS) 

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

Campbell, 510 F.2d at 206). Additionally, the Court agrees with Judge Skomal’s 

conclusions that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) determination was erroneous 

because (1) the ALJ improperly rejected Plaintiff’s subjective testimony, (see R&R 16–

20), and (2) the ALJ improperly rejected the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating doctors, (id. at 

5–16). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Skomal’s R&R in its entirety and thus 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Defendant’s Cross 

Motion for Summary Judgment. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court (1) ADOPTS Judge Skomal’s R&R in its 

entirety, (2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 20), (3) 

DENIES Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 22), and (4) 

REMANDS this case to the agency for further proceedings. This Order ends the litigation 

in this matter. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court SHALL close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 20, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-03096-JLS-BGS Document 26 Filed 03/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3