Jeanette Harris v. Carolyn W. Colvin et al

Filing 19

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge John F. Walter for Report and Recommendation (Issued), 17 . Having reviewed the record, the Court concurs with and accepts the Magistrate Judges recommendations. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner and dismissing this action. (See Order for further details) (bem)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

JEANETTE HARRIS,
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social
Security,

16
17
18

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 15-3732-JFW (JPR)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the

19 Complaint, Joint Stipulation, Administrative Record, and all
20 other records on file as well as the Report and Recommendation of
21 the U.S. Magistrate Judge. On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed
22 objections to the R. & R. The Court has made a de novo
23 determination of those portions of the R. & R. to which the
24 objections pertained.
25

Although many of Plaintiff’s objections simply repeat

26 arguments in the Joint Stipulation – and therefore the Court does
27 not address them because they were adequately considered in the
28 R. & R. – certain of her contentions warrant discussion.
1

1

Plaintiff complains that the Magistrate Judge did not take

2 into account “the periods of exacerbation and remission that is
3 [sic] characteristic of multiple sclerosis.”

(Objs. at 3.)

But

4 the Magistrate Judge specifically noted Dr. Malcolm Shaner’s
5 diagnosis to that effect (see, e.g., R. & R. at 10 (noting
6 doctor’s diagnosis of “relapsing/remitting” multiple sclerosis))
7 and observed that Dr. Shaner nonetheless found that Plaintiff’s
8 multiple sclerosis consistently improved over the course of two
9 years (see id. at 8-10, 17).1
10

Plaintiff also writes that “Plaintiff’s medications and

11 their side-effects were generally ignored.”

(Objs. at 7.)

But

12 the Magistrate Judge thoroughly discussed Plaintiff’s medicines,
13 explaining what they were and how they affected Plaintiff’s
14 symptoms.

(See, e.g., R. & R. at 9 & n.6 (noting prescription

15 for Copaxone and describing what it was used for), 10 (noting
16 that doctor observed that Plaintiff was “doing well” on
17 Copaxone), 11 & n.7 (noting that although Plaintiff was
18 prescribed psychiatric medication she later admitted that she
19 never took it), 25-26 (discussing various medications), 40
20 (noting that Plaintiff claimed her medicines made her fall
21 asleep), 42-43 (finding that Plaintiff’s conditions were
22 effectively treated with various medicines).)

Plaintiff does not

23 identify what side effects the Magistrate Judge allegedly failed
24 to consider.
25
26
27
28

1

As the Magistrate Judge also observed, Plaintiff never
argued for a closed period of disability based on any period of
exacerbated symptoms. (See R. & R. at 21.)
2

1

Having reviewed the record, the Court concurs with and

2 accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.

IT THEREFORE IS

3 ORDERED that judgment be entered affirming the decision of the
4 Commissioner and dismissing this action.
5
6 DATED: September 19, 2016
7

JOHN F. WALTER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3