Brozovic v. Colvin

Filing 24

ORDER: (1) Adopting 23 Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Granting Defendant's 17 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 8/16/2017.(knb)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL SEAN BROZOVIC, Case No.: 3:17-cv-01316-BEN-AGS Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER: NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,1 15 (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND Defendant. 16 17 18 (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 19 20 21 [Docket Nos. 16, 17, 23] 22 23 24 Plaintiff Michael Sean Brozovic 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. 16), and 25 26 27 28 1 Acting Commissioner of Social Security Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for former Acting Commissioner Carolyn C. Colvin pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 3:17-cv-01316-BEN-AGS 1 Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiff’s 2 motion. (Docket Nos. 17, 18.) Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant’s cross- 3 motion. 4 On July 26, 2017, Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler issued a thoughtful and 5 thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s 6 motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary 7 judgment. (Docket No. 23.) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment contends that the 8 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) committed reversible error in rejecting his symptom 9 testimony and failing to adequately explain the reason for the rejection. Magistrate Judge 10 Schopler found that that the ALJ sufficiently explained why Plaintiff’s testimony was not 11 credible. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Schopler found that, of the six reasons the ALJ 12 relied on to support the findings on Plaintiff’s credibility, only one is invalid, and the 13 remaining five reasons are specific, clear, convincing, and supported by substantial 14 evidence in the record. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 15 (9th Cir. 2008) (“So long as there remains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s 16 conclusions on credibility and the error does not negate the validity of the ALJ’s ultimate 17 credibility conclusion, such is deemed harmless and does not warrant reversal.”). 18 Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by August 9, 2017. 19 (Docket No. 23.) Neither party has filed any objections. For the reasons that follow, the 20 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. 21 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 22 magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 23 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 24 recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 25 However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 26 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 27 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also 28 Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 2 3:17-cv-01316-BEN-AGS 1 the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 2 that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 3 The Court need not conduct de novo review given the absence of objections. 4 Nevertheless, the Court has considered the parties’ arguments and fully ADOPTS the 5 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 6 Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: August 16, 2017 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 3:17-cv-01316-BEN-AGS

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?