Barklow v. Kijakazi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
WILLIAM ALLEN B.,1
Plaintiff,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI,2
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:21-cv-00098-JMK-KFR
ORDER
Before the Court at Docket 18 is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reverse the
Commissioner’s Decision and Remand to the Agency” (the “Motion”). 	Defendant
responded in opposition at Docket 19, to which Plaintiff replied at Docket 20. On April 12,
2022, the Motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. 	At
Docket 22, Judge Reardon issued his “Proposed Finding of Fact and Recommendation to
Remand for Further Proceedings,” in which he recommended that the Motion be granted.
Defendant did not file an objection.3
1 Plaintiff’s name is partially redacted in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c)(2)(B) and
the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the
Judicial Conference of the United States. See Memorandum, Committee on Court Administration
and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States (May 1, 2018), available at
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-lsuggestion_cacm_0.pdf.
2 Kilolo Kijakazi is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security and automatically is
substituted as a party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 	See also Section 205(g) of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(g) (action survives regardless of any change in the person occupying
the office of Commissioner of Social Security).
3 Judge Reardon issued his Proposed Finding of Fact and Recommendation on July 18,
2022, with objections due by August 1, 2022. See Docket 22.
Case 3:21-cv-00098-JMK-KFR Document 23 Filed 08/09/22 Page 1 of 2

William Allen B. v. Kijakazi 	Case No. 3:21-cv-98-JMK-KFR
Order 	Page 2 of 2
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That
statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”4 	A court is to “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”5 But as to those topics on which
no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a
district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves
accept as correct.”6
Judge Reardon recommends that this Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion. 	The
Court has reviewed his “Proposed Finding of Fact and Recommendation to Remand” and
agrees with its analysis. 	With no objection filed by Defendant, the Court adopts the
“Proposed Finding of Fact and Recommendation to Remand” at Docket 22.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion at Docket 18 is GRANTED,
the Commissioner’s final decision is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for
further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
4 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
5 Id.
6 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court
review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings.”).
Case 3:21-cv-00098-JMK-KFR Document 23 Filed 08/09/22 Page 2 of 2