Douville v. Colvin

Filing 23

ORDER: (1) Adopting 22 Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying Plaintiff's 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Granting Defendant's 20 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 2/22/2017. (knb)

Download PDF
I "71 1 FILED 2 # FEB 22 PM 3:19 3 4 BSMrv <>v 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND J. DOUVILLE, Case No.: 3:15-cv-02946-BEN-JLB Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER: CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Defendant. 16 (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 17 18 (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [Docket Nos. 18,20,22] Plaintiff Raymond J. Douville filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (docket no. 18), and Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiff s motion. (Docket No. 20.) 27 28 l 3:15-cv-02946-BEN-JLB i V/ 1 On January 13, 2017, 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. 22.) Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment contends that the 5 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) committed reversible error for rejecting a portion of 6 the medical opinion of Dr. Phong T. Dao, D.O., and failing to adequately explain the 7 reason for the rejection. Magistrate Judge Burkhardt found that the ALJ did not err in 8 rejecting the disputed portion of Dr. Dao’s opinion because it was contradictory to some 9 of Plaintiff s medical records and the opinions of two other physicians (one treating, one 10 non-treating). Magistrate Judge Burkhardt also found the ALJ sufficiently explained his 11 reasons for rejecting Dr. Dao’s opinion. See Howard ex. Rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 12 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1998) (“[I]n 13 interpreting the evidence and developing the record, the ALJ does not need to discuss 14 ‘every piece of evidence.’ ”). 15 Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by January 30, 2017. 16 (Docket No. 22.) Neither party has filed any objections. For the reasons that follow, the 17 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. 18 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 19 magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 21 recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 22 However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 23 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 24 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also 25 Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 26 the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 27 that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 28 2 3:15-cv-02946-BEN-JLB I 1 The Court need not conduct de novo review given the absence of objections. 2 However, the Court has conducted a de novo review and fully ADOPTS the Report and 3 Recommendation. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendant’s 4 cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 8 Dated: February <0^-2017 / 9 rROGER T. BBNITEZ nited States District Court Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 3:15-cv-02946-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?