From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Craig v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 10, 2020
Case No.: 19cv636 JM (JLB) (S.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2020)

Opinion

Case No.: 19cv636 JM (JLB)

09-10-2020

PATRICIA CRAIG, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, filed on August 11, 2020, recommending that the court grant Plaintiff Patricia Craig's motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment, and remand the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. (Doc. No. 17.)

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 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 (citing Campbel v. United States Dist. Ct., 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.").

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Burkhardt's R&R. (See Doc. No. 17 at 46 (objections due by August 25, 2020).) Having reviewed the R&R, the court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Burkhardt's report and recommendation; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 10); and (3) DENIES Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 12). This case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.

This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: September 10, 2020

/s/_________

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo for

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller, United States District Judge


Summaries of

Craig v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 10, 2020
Case No.: 19cv636 JM (JLB) (S.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2020)
Case details for

Craig v. Saul

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA CRAIG, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 10, 2020

Citations

Case No.: 19cv636 JM (JLB) (S.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2020)

Citing Cases

Victor R. v. O'Malley

See Hutton v. Astrue, 491 Fed.Appx. 850, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2012); Patricia C. v. Saul, No. 19-CV-00636, 2020…

Oseph B. v. O'Malley

It is Plaintiff's burden to show harmful error at step three. Thus, it is not post hoc rationalization for…