Nguyen v. Colvin

Filing 18

ORDER: The report and recommendation (Dkt # 17 ) is adopted in its entirety. The motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff (Dkt # 14 ) is denied. The cross-motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant (Dkt # 15 ) is granted. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 3/30/2016. (mdc)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANH VAN NGUYEN, CASE NO. 15cv765-WQH-NLS 11 ORDER 13 Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 14 Defendant. 12 15 HAYES, Judge: 16 The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation 17 (ECF No. 17) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes, recommencing 18 that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) be denied and that 19 Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) be granted. 20 21 BACKGROUND On August 19, 2011, Plaintiff Anh Van Nguyen filed an application for social 22 security disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 10-3 at 23 1). Plaintiff’s claim was denied at the initial level and upon reconsideration. (ECF No. 24 10-3 at 9, 23). Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an administrative law judge 25 (“ALJ”), which was held on August 5, 2013. (ECF No. 10-2 at 57). On October 16, 26 2013, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision, concluding that Plaintiff was not 27 disabled. (ECF No. 10-2 at 9-20). On February 11, 2015, the Appeals Council for the 28 Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff’s request for further review. (ECF No. -1- 15cv765-WQH-NLS 1 10-2 at 2–4). 2 On April 7, 2015, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, commenced this action 3 seeking judicial review of Defendant’s decision. (ECF No. 1). On October 22, 2015, 4 Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 14). On November 12, 2015, 5 Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 15). On February 6 2, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued the report and recommendation. (ECF No. 17). 7 The report and recommendation recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for summary 8 judgment be denied and Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment be granted. 9 The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ’s decision to deny Nguyen benefits was 10 supported by substantial evidence. 11 The report and recommendation states that any party may file written objections 12 with the Court no later than February 17, 2016 and that “failure to file objections within 13 the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s 14 order.” Id. at 26. The docket reflects that no objections to the report and 15 recommendation have been filed. 16 17 REVIEW OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The duties of the district court in connection with the report and recommendation 18 of a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those 20 portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or 21 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate 22 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions 23 of a report and recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 24 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 25 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 26 After review of the report and recommendation, the written opinion of the ALJ, 27 the administrative record, and the submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that 28 the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial -2- 15cv765-WQH-NLS 1 evidence and the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. 2 3 CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the report and recommendation (ECF No. 4 17) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff 5 (ECF No. 14) is DENIED; and (3) the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by 6 Defendant (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 7 for Defendant and against Plaintiff. 8 DATED: March 30, 2016 9 10 WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- 15cv765-WQH-NLS

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?