Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02741/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02741-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405wc Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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

ROSEANNA SAVANNA

HUNNICUTT-LOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12cv2741 AJB (KSC)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No.

21);

(2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS, (Doc. No.

15); AND

(3) REMANDING FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS.

On November 12, 2012, Plaintiff Roseanna Savanna Hunnicutt-Lott (“Plaintiff”)

filed an appeal with this Court against Carolyn W. Colvin, acting Commissioner of Social

Security (the “Commissioner”), pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42

U.S.C. § 405(g) (the “Act”). (Doc. No. 1.) The appeal sought judicial review of an

adverse final decision that denied Plaintiff disability insurance benefits under the Act. 

(Id.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint as a matter of right on February 7, 2013, (Doc.

No. 10), and the Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction on March 22, 2013, (Doc. No. 15).1

 

1 On November 15, 2012, the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Karen C. Crawford for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. No. 3.)

1 12cv2741 AJB (KSC)

Case 3:12-cv-02741-AJB-KSC Document 22 Filed 03/20/14 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

On February 28, 2014, Magistrate Judge Karen C. Crawford issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 21.) The R&R recommended that the Court deny

the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remand

the case to the Social Security Administration for further consideration of Plaintiff’s

physical and mental reasons for failing to timely appear at the August 2, 2011 hearing.2

(Id. at 11:18-22.) The R&R further instructed the parties that any objection to the R&R

must be served on the Court no later than fourteen days after being served with a copy of

the R&R, i.e., March 14, 2014, and that failure to file objections by this date time may

waive the right to raise those objections on appeal. See Baxter v. Sullivan,

923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). As of the date of this order, neither party has filed

an objection to the R&R or requested additional time in which to file such objections.

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, as stated above, neither party filed timely

objections to the R&R despite being represented by counsel. Therefore, the Court adopts

the R&R in full finding it 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 DENIES the

2 “Based on the foregoing, this Court concludes that plaintiff has stated a colorable due process claim. She has also presented undisputed evidence of a due process violation. Under these circumstances, the Ninth Circuit in Dexter v. Colvin, 731 F.3d 977

(9th Cir. 2013), has held that the proper remedy is not judicial review of the ALJ’s good

cause determination but a remand to the SSA for further consideration of the claimant’s

grounds for good cause. Id. at 982.” (Doc. No. 21 at 11:12-17.)

2 12cv2741 AJB (KSC)

Case 3:12-cv-02741-AJB-KSC Document 22 Filed 03/20/14 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

Commissioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and REMANDS

the matter to the Social Security Administration for further consideration in accordance

with this order. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case upon remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 20, 2014

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

3 12cv2741 AJB (KSC)

Case 3:12-cv-02741-AJB-KSC Document 22 Filed 03/20/14 Page 3 of 3