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)

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)