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)

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