Clay v. Social Security Administration Office

Filing 37

ORDER approving and adopting 36 Report and Recommendation in its entirety; denying Plaintiff's 32 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Defendant's 33 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. Clerk is directed to substitute Nancy A. Berryhill in place of Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 5/31/2017. (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GLENN EDWIN CLAY,

Case No. 14-cv-02893-BAS-BLM
Plaintiff,

12
13

ORDER:
(1) APPROVING AND
ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION IN ITS
ENTIRETY (ECF No. 36);

v.

14
15

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

16

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF No. 32);
AND

Defendant.

17
18

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF No. 33)

19
20
21

Plaintiff Glenn Edwin Clay commenced this action under the Social Security

22

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the Social Security Administration’s denial of

23

his application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits.1 The Court

24

referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major, who issued

25
26
27
28

1

On January 23, 2017, Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of Social
Security. She is therefore substituted as Defendant in this suit for former Acting Commissioner
Carolyn W. Colvin. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d); 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(d) (stating that where an
action for judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner is instituted “the person
holding the Office of the Commissioner shall, in his official capacity, be the proper defendant”).
–1–

14cv2893

1

a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on April 25, 2017, recommending that this

2

Court: (1) deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and (2) grant Defendant’s

3

cross-motion for summary judgment. The time for filing objections to the R&R

4

expired on May 12, 2017. (R&R 31:5–7.) Both parties are represented by counsel,

5

but to date, neither party has filed any objections.

6

I.

ANALYSIS

7

The court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are

8

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,

9

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[t]he statute

10

makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and

11

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v.

12

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Schmidt v.

13

Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no

14

objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate

15

judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to

16

review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as

17

correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This rule of law is well-established within

18

the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13

19

(9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an

20

objection is made to the R & R.”); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949

21

(S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting R&R in its entirety without review because

22

neither party filed objections to the R&R despite the opportunity to do so); see also

23

Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

24

In the social-security context, the district court’s jurisdiction is limited to

25

determining whether the Social Security Administration’s denial of benefits is

26

supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. See 42 U.S.C. §

27

405(g). A district court may overturn a decision to deny benefits only if it is not

28

supported by substantial evidence or if the decision is based on legal error. See
–2–

14cv2893

1

Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995); Magallenes v. Bowen, 881

2

F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). The Ninth Circuit defines substantial evidence as

3

“more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence

4

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Andrews,

5

53 F.3d at 1039. Determinations of credibility, resolution of conflicts in medical

6

testimony, and all other ambiguities are to be resolved by the administrative law

7

judge (“ALJ”). See id.; Magallenes, 881 F.2d at 750. The decision of the ALJ will be

8

upheld if the evidence is “susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.”

9

Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1040.

10

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on May 12, 2017. However,

11

no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do

12

so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-

13

Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the

14

R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Major’s reasoning is sound and correct in

15

recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and

16

grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the Court

17

approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

18

II.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

19

In light of the foregoing, the Court approves and ADOPTS IN ITS

20

ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF No. 36), DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary

21

judgment (ECF No. 32), and GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for summary

22

judgment (ECF No. 33). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Further, the Clerk of the Court

23

is directed to SUBSTITUTE Nancy A. Berryhill in place of Defendant Carolyn W.

24

Colvin. The Clerk of the Court shall then enter judgment accordingly and close this

25

case.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

DATED: May 31, 2017
–3–

14cv2893