Donna Dietz v. Nancy A Berryhill, No. 2:2015cv09904 - Document 26 (C.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 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. (iva)
Download PDF
Donna Dietz v. Nancy A Berryhill Doc. 26 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. ) ) NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ) Acting Commissioner of Social ) Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) _____________________________ ) DONNA DIETZ, Case No. CV 15-9904-SP MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On May 18, 2017, 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 June 1, 2017, and plaintiff responded to those 23 objections on June 15, 2017. 24 Meanwhile, on May 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a statement of consent to have 25 the magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in this case. As defendant had 26 previously filed her statement of consent (much earlier, on February 24, 2016), on 27 May 22, 2017 the case was reassigned to the magistrate judge for all further 28 proceedings and final disposition. In defendant’s objections to the Report and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Recommendation, defendant also expressed disapproval of plaintiff’s late consent, 2 after a Report and Recommendation favorable to plaintiff had been issued. 3 The court appreciates and understands defendant’s concerns about 4 plaintiff’s consenting to magistrate judge jurisdiction only after the Report and 5 Recommendation was filed. Nonetheless, as defendant acknowledges, the Local 6 Rules of this court plainly permit the parties to consent “at any time prior to the 7 entry of judgment.” L.R. 73-3. As such, plaintiff’s consent is valid, and the case 8 has been reassigned. But the court will not enter judgment without first 9 considering defendant’s objections since, with the Report and Recommendation, 10 the court notified the parties they had the opportunity to file objections, and thus 11 the court finds it appropriate that any objections filed be considered. 12 Accordingly, the court has considered defendant’s objections, and has 13 specifically reviewed again those portions of the Report and Recommendation to 14 which defendant has objected. Defendant raises certain points with respect to the 15 court’s findings that the ALJ erred in making an incomplete residual functional 16 capacity determination, and consequently erred in posing an incomplete 17 hypothetical to the vocational expert. Although the court has carefully considered 18 defendant’s objections, they did not cause the court to reconsider its findings. 19 As such, the court adopts and incorporates by reference the findings in the 20 Report and Recommendation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be 21 entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits, and 22 remanding this action for further administrative proceedings consistent with the 23 Report and Recommendation as incorporated into this Memorandum Opinion and 24 Order. 25 26 Dated: June 22, 2017 27 28 SHERI PYM United States Magistrate Judge 2