Taylor v. Colvin

Filing 32

ORDER: (1) Adopting 31 Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying Plaintiff's 28 Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Granting Defendant's 29 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 2/14/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

Download PDF
1 FILED. 2 p FEB IS 3 4 ys/\ 5 y~+^ «!V’ v&m# 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW B. TAYLOR, Case No.: 15-cv-02663-BEN-JLB Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; and Defendant. 16 17 19 (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 20 Plaintiff Matthew B. Taylor filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social 18 21 Security Commissioner’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. 22 (Docket No. 1). Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 28), and 23 Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiffs 24 motion (Docket Nos. 29-30). i 25 26 27 28 i During the underlying administrative proceedings and in filing the operative complaint, Plaintiff was represented by counsel. In filing his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff proceeds pro se. l 15-CV-02663-BEN-JLB 1 On December 29, 2016, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt issued a thoughtful and 2 thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiffs 3 motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary 4 judgment. (Docket No. 31). Magistrate Judge Burkhardt found that even construing 5 Plaintiffs filings liberally, he failed to adequately dispute the Administrative Law 6 Judge’s (“ALJ”) findings and determination that he is not disabled and, for this reason, 7 summary judgment in his favor is not warranted. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. 8 Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Our circuit has repeatedly admonished 9 that we cannot ‘manufacture arguments for an appellant’.... Rather, we ‘review only 10 issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.’ 11 Significantly, ‘a bare assertion of an issue does not preserve a claim.’”). Although 12 Plaintiff failed to adequately dispute the ALJ’s findings and determination, Magistrate 13 Judge Burkhardt nonetheless considered the ALJ’s decision and concluded that the ALJ 14 applied the correct legal standards and that his opinion is supported by substantial 15 evidence. Finally, Magistrate Judge Burkhardt found that Plaintiffs newly submitted 16 evidence does not merit remand because Plaintiff failed to show that the new evidence is 17 material and that good cause exists for his failure to incorporate the evidence into the 18 administrative record. 19 Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due January 18, 2017. 20 Neither party has filed any objections. For the reasons that follow, the Report and 21 22 Recommendation is ADOPTED. A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 23 magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 24 § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 25 recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 26 However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 27 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 28 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also 2 15-CV-02663-BEN-JLB 1 Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 2 the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 3 that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 4 The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 5 Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 31). Plaintiffs motion 6 for summary judgment is DENIED. (Docket No. 28). Defendant’s cross-motion for 7 summary judgment is GRANTED. (Docket No. 29). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 11 Dated: February, , 2017 Hon. Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge N 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 15-cv-02663-BEN-JLB

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?