French v. Astrue

Filing 18

ORDER Denying 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting 13 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; Adopting 17 Magistrate's Report and Recommendation in its Entirety. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 1/2/2014. (srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

PAULA MICHELLE FRENCH,

CASE NO. 13cv0267-WQH (WVG)

11

ORDER

13

Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

14

Defendant.

12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

HAYES, Judge:
The matter before the Court is the review of the report and recommendation (ECF
No. 17) issued by United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo, recommending that
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 12) be denied and Defendant’s
cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) be granted.
BACKGROUND
On March 25, 2010, Plaintiff Paula French filed an application for supplemental
security income under Title XVI and XIX of the Social Security Act (“Act”). (ECF No.
10-5 at 2–7). Plaintiff’s claim was denied at the initial level and upon reconsideration.
(ECF No. 10-3). Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an administrative law judge
(“ALJ”), which was held on March 4, 2011. (ECF No. 10-2 at 32–46). On September
22, 2011, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision, concluding that Plaintiff was not
disabled as defined under the Act. (ECF No. 10-2 at 15–31). On November 28, 2012,
the Appeals Council for the Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff’s request
for further review. (ECF No. 10-2 at 4–6).
-1-

[13cv0267-WQH(WVG)]

1

On February 1, 2013, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, commenced this action

2 seeking judicial review of Defendant’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF
3 No. 1). On July 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.
4 12). On August 12, 2013, Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
5 (ECF No. 13). On October 29, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued the report and
6 recommendation. (ECF No. 17). The report and recommendation recommends that
7 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied and Defendant’s cross-motion for
8 summary judgment be granted. The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ properly
9 rejected the treating physician’s opinions in concluding that Plaintiff was not disabled
10 under the Act. The Magistrate Judge also found that substantial evidence supported the
11 ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s testimony was not credible.
12

The report and recommendation states that any party may file written objections

13 with the Court no later than November 21, 2013 and that “failure to file objections
14 within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the
15 Court’s order.” Id. at 47–48. The docket reflects that no objections to the report and
16 recommendation have been filed.
17
18

REVIEW OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The duties of the district court in connection with the report and recommendation

19 of a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28
20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those
21 portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or
22 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
23 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions
24 of a report and recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis,
25 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
26 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
27

After review of the report and recommendation, the written opinion of the ALJ,

28 the administrative record, and the submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that
-2-

[13cv0267-WQH(WVG)]

1 the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial
2 evidence and the ALJ applied the correct legal standards.
3
4

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the report and recommendation (ECF No.

5 17) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff
6 (ECF No. 12) is DENIED; and (3) the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by
7 Defendant (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
8 for Defendant and against Plaintiff.
9 DATED: January 2, 2014
10
11

WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

[13cv0267-WQH(WVG)]