Filed: Jun. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2017
Summary: ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; and (4) REMANDING ACTION FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS ROGER T. BENITEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff John Willard Snyder filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's 1 denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff filed a motion for s
Summary: ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; and (4) REMANDING ACTION FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS ROGER T. BENITEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff John Willard Snyder filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's 1 denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff filed a motion for su..
More
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION;
(2) GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
(3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; and
(4) REMANDING ACTION FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff John Willard Snyder filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's1 denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, and Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiff's motion.
On April 17, 2017, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Burkhardt found that the Administrative Law Judge failed to articulate clear and convincing reasons for discrediting Plaintiff's testimony about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms. Magistrate Judge Burkhardt recommends remanding this action for further administrative proceedings. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due May 2, 2017. Neither party has filed any objections.
A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, "[t]he 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); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.
The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 26). Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Docket No. 17). Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Docket No. 19). This case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
