Robert Wahl v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 2:2014cv04986 - Document 26 (C.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: (1) plaintiffs Request for Entry of Judgment (docket no. 23) is GRANTED; and (2) Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits, and remanding this action for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation as incorporated into this Memorandum Opinion and Order. (mrgo)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Robert Wahl v. Carolyn W. Colvin Doc. 26 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting ) Commissioner of Social Security ) ) Administration, ) ) Defendant. _____________________________ ) ROBERT WAHL, Case No. CV 14-4986-SP MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On September 14, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge issued a Report and 19 Recommendation, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of the 20 Social Security Administration denying benefits to plaintiff be reversed, and that 21 the case be remanded to the Commissioner. Defendant filed objections to the 22 Report and Recommendation on September 29, 2015, and plaintiff responded to 23 those objections on October 12, 2015. 24 Meanwhile, on September 30, 2015, plaintiff filed a statement of consent to 25 have the magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in this case. As defendant had 26 previously filed her statement of consent (much earlier, on August 21, 2014), on 27 October 1, 2015 the case was reassigned to the magistrate judge for all further 28 proceedings and final disposition. In light of the case reassignment, on October 8, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2015, plaintiff filed a request for entry of judgment, arguing that plaintiff’s 2 objections were now moot, and asking the court to enter judgment in his favor. 3 Defendant opposed this request on October 13, 2015, objecting to plaintiff’s late 4 consent and arguing that the court should consider defendant’s objections. 5 The court appreciates and understands defendant’s concerns about 6 plaintiff’s consenting to magistrate judge jurisdiction only after the Report and 7 Recommendation was filed. Nonetheless, the Local Rules of this court plainly 8 permit the parties to consent “at any time prior to the entry of judgment.” L.R. 739 3. As such, plaintiff’s consent is valid, and the case has been reassigned. But the 10 court will not enter judgment without first considering defendant’s objections, for 11 two reasons. First, with the Report and Recommendation, the court notified the 12 parties they had the opportunity to file objections, and thus the court finds it 13 appropriate that any objections filed be considered. Second, even if the objections 14 are not properly considered as objections, under the procedural circumstances 15 described above, the court will treat the objections as a request for reconsideration. 16 The court will also consider the objections, even though they were filed one day 17 late. 18 Accordingly, the court has considered defendant’s objections, and has 19 specifically reviewed again those portions of the Report and Recommendation to 20 which defendant has objected. Although defendant raises a number of points with 21 respect to the court’s findings that the ALJ erred in discounting plaintiff’s 22 credibility with respect to his claimed mental limitations and in failing to properly 23 consider the opinions of plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist and therapist, these points 24 are largely the same as those defendant made in her memorandum in support of the 25 answer. None of defendant’s objections cause the court to reconsider its findings. 26 As such, the court adopts and incorporates by reference the findings in the 27 Report and Recommendation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: (1) plaintiff’s 28 Request for Entry of Judgment (docket no. 23) is GRANTED; and (2) Judgment 2 1 be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits, and 2 remanding this action for further administrative proceedings consistent with the 3 Report and Recommendation as incorporated into this Memorandum Opinion and 4 Order. 5 6 Dated: October 22, 2015 7 8 SHERI PYM United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
