ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (4) REMANDING CASE TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

(ECF Nos. 16, 18, 21)

JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 16), and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 18). The Court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, who subsequently issued a thorough, twenty-one-page Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part 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 ("R. & R."). (ECF No. 21.) Having reviewed the Parties' motions, Judge Burkhardt's Report and Recommendation, and the underlying Administrative Record, (ECF No. 13), the Court ADOPTS Judge Burkhardt'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 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); 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 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, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

ANALYSIS

In the present case, neither party objected to Judge Burkhardt's Report and Recommendation. And the Court here finds no clear error on the face of the record. The Court agrees that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") below "failed to articulate specific and legitimate reasons to discount [both] Dr. Kistler's opinions" and "Plaintiff's statements concerning the limiting effects on the use of his hands as a result of his symptoms." (R. & R. 6; see also id. at 15-19 (noting, in sum, that: several of Defendant's motion-based arguments are post-hoc rationales not articulated by the ALJ; the ALJ "fail[ed] to point to any medical evidence in support of [his] conclusion" regarding Plaintiff's alleged mental limitations, whereas Plaintiff supplied ample evidence supporting the contrary conclusion; the ALJ "discounted Plaintiff's testimony regarding the use of his hands" without any meaningful analysis whatsoever; and each error may affect the ultimate disability determination).)1 Furthermore, the Court agrees that although the ALJ's errors were not harmless, remanding for further consideration is appropriate given that in this case "enhancement of the record would be useful." (Id. at 19-20 (quoting Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2004)).)

CONCLUSION

Given the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Judge Burkhardt's Report and Recommendation in its entirety, (ECF No. 21); GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 16); DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 18); and 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.