Pohlman v. Colvin

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of United States Magistrate Judge; Denying Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting Defendant's 13 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 2/14/2017.(ag)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 Case No.: 16cv276-MMA (PCL) JESSICA ANN POHLMAN, 7 8 9 10 11 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, [Doc. No. 15] DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; Defendant. [Doc. No. 12] 12 13 GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 [Doc. No. 13] 15 16 17 On February 2, 2016, Plaintiff Jessica Ann Pohlman filed this appeal pursuant to 18 Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the denial of 19 her application for disability insurance benefits. See Doc. No. 1. The Court referred all 20 matters arising in this social security appeal to the Honorable Peter C. Lewis, United 21 States Magistrate Judge, for report and recommendation pursuant to section 636(b)(1)(B) 22 of title 28 of the United States Code and Civil Local Rule 72.1. See Doc. No. 4; 28 23 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 72.1. 24 On January 13, 2017, Judge Lewis issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report 25 containing findings and conclusions, upon which he bases his Recommendation that the 26 Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross motion 27 for summary judgment. See Doc. No. 15. Neither party objected to the Report and 28 Recommendation, and the time for filing objections has expired. -1- 16cv276-MMA (PCL) 1 The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and 2 recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 3 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a report and recommendation, “[a] 4 judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 5 [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 6 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the 7 R&R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States 8 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district judge may 9 nevertheless “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 10 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Wilkins v. 11 Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006); Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. 12 Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 2006). 13 The Court has considered the pleadings and memoranda of the parties as well as 14 the administrative record, and has made a review and determination in accordance with 15 the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Accordingly, 16 1. 17 18 15] in its entirety; 2. 19 20 21 The Court ADOPTS Judge Lewis’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 12]; and, 3. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 13]. 22 The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate the action. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: February 14, 2017 _____________________________ Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge -2- 16cv276-MMA (PCL)

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?