Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01755/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01755-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision (regarding payment of benefits)

---

1

16-CV-1755-JLS (PCL)

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

WILLIAM T. LENZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-CV-1755-JLS (PCL)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

(ECF No. 18)

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis’s Report and 

Recommendation, (“R&R”, ECF No. 18). Judge Lewis recommends the Court grant 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, and remand the matter to the Social Security Administration for further 

proceedings. Having reviewed the Parties’ motions, Judge Lewis’s R&R, and the 

underlying Administrative Record, the Court ADOPTS Judge Lewis’s Report and 

Recommendation in its entirety.

LEGAL STANDARD

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

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report to which 

Case 3:16-cv-01755-JLS-PCL Document 19 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-CV-1755-JLS (PCL)

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

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. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 

617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, 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 to 1983 amendment

(citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 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

In the present case, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge 

Lewis’s R&R. (See R&R 31 (objections due by October 31, 2017).) Having reviewed the 

R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 

In this matter, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) concluded Plaintiff is not 

disabled because he has the residual functional capacity to perform “light work” subject to 

certain limitations. (R&R 3.) In his R&R, Judge Lewis determined the ALJ erred in this 

decision. The Court agrees the ALJ’s determination failed to address various professional 

opinions of treating and examining physicians regarding the type and severity of issues 

troubling Plaintiff’s left leg and spine. (Id. at 22–23, 25.) The ALJ’s determination did 

not address various doctors’ opinions that contradict the ALJ’s conclusion, let alone give 

“specific and legitimate” reasons for rejecting the opinions. (Id. at 28 (quoting Marsh v. 

Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 1172–73 (9th Cir. 2015).) The failure to do constitutes error. 

Furthermore, the Court agrees remanding for further proceedings is appropriate so that the 

Commissioner may evaluate Plaintiff’s disability in light of all of the medical records

before it. (Id. at 30.)

Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lewis’s Report and 

Recommendation; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES

Case 3:16-cv-01755-JLS-PCL Document 19 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-CV-1755-JLS (PCL)

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

Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) REMANDS the case to the 

Social Security Administration for further proceedings. Because this concludes the 

litigation in this matter, the Clerk SHALL close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01755-JLS-PCL Document 19 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3