Marshall v. Astrue

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Granting in Part 13 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying 18 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and Reversing and Remanding Action for Further Administrative Proceedings. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 3/10/2010.(mjj) Modified on 3/10/2010 - Certified copy sent to SSA via U.S. Mail Service (mjj). (mam).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEBORAH L. MARSHALL, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant. CASE NO. 08cv1735-L(WMc) ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND REVERSING AND REMANDING ACTION FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS Plaintiff Deborah L. Marshall filed a Complaint for Judicial Review and Remedy on Administrative Decision Under the Social Security Act. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(c)(1)(c), the case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. for a report and recommendation. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On February 8, 2010 Judge McCurine issued a report and recommendation recommending to grant in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant's motion for summary judgment and remand the action for further administrative proceedings. For the reasons which follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. This action is REVERSED AND REMANDED. Upon review of the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") decision, the record, and the parties' papers, Judge McCurine found that in denying benefits, the ALJ relied on the -108cv1735 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vocational expert's opinion. The ALJ erred by failing to ask the vocational expert whether his opinion conflicted with the Department of Labor's Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT"). Specifically, the ALJ found that one of Plaintiff's limitations was the she could only occasionally reach overhead with her left arm. The vocational expert opined that Plaintiff could perform three occupations all of which required more than occasional reaching. The conflict between Plaintiff's limitations and the DOT requirements was not explained in the ALJ's opinion. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended to remand the action for further administrative proceedings. A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Section 636(b)(1) does not require review by the district court under a lesser standard when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The "statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in the original); see Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003). When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived. Neither party has filed any objections. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART, Defendant's summary judgment motion is DENIED. This action is REVERSED AND REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 10, 2010 M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge -208cv1735 COPY TO: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HON. WILLIAM McCURINE, Jr. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL -3- 08cv1735

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?