Snyder v. Colvin

Filing 27

ORDER: (1) Adopting re 26 Report and Recommendation; (2) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Denying Defendant's 19 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; and (4) Remanding Action for Further Administrative Proceedings. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 6/13/2017.(knb)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN WILLARD SNYDER, Case No.: 16-cv-0243-BEN-JLB Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 (2) GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; Defendant. 16 17 18 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; and 19 20 21 (4) REMANDING ACTION FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 22 23 24 Plaintiff John Willard Snyder filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s1 denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. 25 26 27 1 28 When Plaintiff initiated this action, Carolyn Colvin was serving as the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Nancy Berryhill is now serving as 1 16-cv-0243-BEN-JLB 1 Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, and Defendant filed a cross-motion for 2 summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. 3 On April 17, 2017, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt issued a thoughtful and 4 thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant in part and 5 deny in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and deny Defendant’s cross- 6 motion for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Burkhardt found that the 7 Administrative Law Judge failed to articulate clear and convincing reasons for 8 discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of 9 his symptoms. Magistrate Judge Burkhardt recommends remanding this action for 10 further administrative proceedings. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were 11 due May 2, 2017. Neither party has filed any objections. 12 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 13 magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 14 § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 15 recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 16 However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 17 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 18 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also 19 Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 20 the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 21 that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 22 The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 23 Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 26). Plaintiff’s motion 24 for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Docket No. 25 17). Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Docket No. 19). 26 27 28 the Acting Commissioner. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Berryhill is automatically substituted as a party. 2 16-cv-0243-BEN-JLB 1 This case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report and 2 Recommendation. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 13, 2017 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 16-cv-0243-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?