Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 22 Report and Recommendation and overruling 23 Objections. The decision of the ALJ is affirmed. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 9/25/24. (DXD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Teresa Lynnette Rodriguez,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Commissioner
Administration,

13

No. CV-23-08567-PCT-DWL

of

ORDER

Social

Security

Defendant.

14
15

This is a Social Security appeal. On October 13, 2023, the Court referred the matter

16

to Magistrate Judge Metcalf for the preparation of a report and recommendation (“R&R”)

17

as to the final disposition. (Doc. 9.) On August 27, 2024, Judge Metcalf issued an R&R

18

concluding that the ALJ’s decision should be affirmed. (Doc. 22.) Plaintiff has, in turn,

19

filed objections to the R&R (Doc. 23), to which the Commissioner did not respond.
For the following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R.

20

DISCUSSION

21
22

I.

Legal Standard

23

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), a district judge may “designate a magistrate judge

24

to . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for

25

the disposition” of a dispositive matter. Id. As noted, the Court made such a referral here.

26

“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the R&R], any party may

27

serve and file written objections . . . as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court

28

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

1

findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept,

2

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

3

magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to

4

the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Fed. R. Civ. P.

5

72(b)(2)-(3).

6

“In providing for a de novo determination . . . Congress intended to permit whatever

7

reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a

8

magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations. . . . [D]istrict courts conduct proper

9

de novo review where they state they have done so, even if the order fails to specifically

10

address a party’s objections.” United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023)

11

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). See also id. at 434 (“[T]he district court

12

ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection.”).

13

Additionally, district courts are not required to review any portion of an R&R to

14

which no specific objection has been made. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-

15

50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a

16

magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when

17

neither party objects to those findings.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

18

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and

19

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Thus, district judges

20

need not review an objection to an R&R that is general and non-specific. See, e.g., Warling

21

v. Ryan, 2013 WL 5276367, *2 (D. Ariz. 2013); Haley v. Stewart, 2006 WL 1980649, *2

22

(D. Ariz. 2006).

23

II.

Analysis

24

Plaintiff raises two assignments of error in her opening brief: (1) the ALJ improperly

25

discredited the opinions of her treating dermatologist, Dr. Bellew; and (2) the ALJ

26

improperly discredited her symptom testimony. (Doc. 16 at 1.) The R&R concludes that

27

Plaintiff is not entitled to reversal based on either argument. (Doc. 22 at 17, 35.)

28

The Court has now reviewed the extremely thorough R&R, reviewed Plaintiff’s

-2-

1

objections, and performed a de novo review of the objected-to portions of the R&R. Based

2

on that review, the Court now adopts the R&R’s conclusions.

3

Although further discussion is unnecessary under Ramos, the Court wishes to

4

address Plaintiff’s assertion that “[t]he ALJ, and the R&R, are mistaken that Dr. Bellew

5

only observed [Plaintiff’s] skin lesions during a single examination—positive signs of skin

6

symptoms were observed during multiple dermatology examinations in the relevant

7

period.” (Doc. 23 at 3.) As an initial matter, the records that Plaintiff cites in support of

8

this assertion are the documents appearing at AR 1073, 1635, 1638, 1640, 1641, 1642,

9

1643, 1645, 1647, and 1653. (Id. at 3-4.) Although the first of those documents (AR at

10

1073) is an examination note from Dr. Bellew, the remaining documents appear to be notes

11

from examinations performed by other providers.1 Thus, the cited records do not contradict

12

the ALJ’s statement that “Dr. Bellew’s records show only one occasion when the claimant

13

was noted to have lesions covering 60% of her body.” (AR at 1141, emphasis added.)

14

Additionally, the ALJ chose to give little weight to Dr. Bellew’s opinions in part

15

because Dr. Bellew’s records “show[ed] only one occasion [on August 17, 2015] when the

16

claimant was noted to have lesions covering 60% of her body, and this was associated with

17

starting a new medication. . . . Given that the number of lesions described by Dr. Bellew

18

in his opinion appear to be an anomaly related to a medication reaction, the undersigned

19

does not find this opinion regarding an inability to work or need for absences entitled to

20

more than limited weight.” (Id. at 1141.) Although the cited records within Exhibit 27F

21

may show that Plaintiff was observed as having lesions during certain examinations

22

performed by other medical providers, they do not state that she had lesions covering 60%

23

of her body during those examinations. (Id. at 1635, 1638, 1640, 1641, 1642, 1643, 1645,

24

1647, 1653.) Thus, they do not contradict the ALJ’s overarching point.2

25

1

26
27
28

According to the index to the AR, Dr. Bellew’s progress notes appear in Part 23F
(which encompasses AR 1070-85), whereas Part 27F (which encompasses AR 1625-62)
contains office treatment records from “Mohave Skin Cancer.” (AR at 1155-56.) Although
Dr. Bellew worked at the Mohave Skin and Cancer Clinic (AR at 1073), there is no
indication that he was the author of the treatment records appearing in Part 27F.
2
Moreover, in other records within Part 23F, Dr. Bellew observed that Plaintiff was
experiencing “great improvement” and was “much improved from last visit.” (AR at
-3-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED that:

3

(1)

Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (Doc. 23) are overruled.

4

(2)

The R&R (Doc. 22) is adopted.

5

(3)

The decision of the ALJ is affirmed.

6

(4)

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action.

7

Dated this 25th day of September, 2024.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1079.) These records are thus consistent with the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Bellew’s
August 17, 2015 treatment note, which noted “papules and plaques . . . encompassing more
than 60% of the body surface” (id. at 1073), reflected “an anomaly related to a medication
reaction.” (Id. at 1141.)
-4-