Paul v. Colvin

Filing 22

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Dkt # 21 ) is adopted in its entirety. The motion for summary judgment (Dkt # 17 ) is granted. The cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt # 19 ) is denied. The case is remanded for further proceedings. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 9/21/2017. (mdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

KRIS DALE PAUL,

CASE NO. 16cv1479-WQH-KSC

11

ORDER

13

Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

14

Defendant.

12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

HAYES, Judge:
The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 21) issued by United States Magistrate recommending that this Court grant
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) and deny Defendant’s CrossMotion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19).
I. Background
On February 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security benefits, alleging disability beginning August 1,
2006. Plaintiff’s application was denied at the initial level and upon reconsideration.
On January 5, 2015, the ALJ issued a written decision finding Plaintiff not
disabled.

The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the following severe impairments:

degenerative disc disease, right leg cellulitis, post-left wrist surgery, and affective
disorder. The ALJ found that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meet or equal the severity in the Listing of Impairments. The ALJ
found that Plaintiff was not able to return to any past relevant work which included
-1-

16cv1479-WQH-KSC

1 construction worker and heavy equipment operator. The ALJ found that Plaintiff has
2 the residual functional capacity to perform light work with certain restrictions including
3 “could stand and walk for one hour at a time for a total of 4 hours in an 8-hour
4 workday.” (AR14).

The Appeals Council for the Social Security Administration

5 denied Plaintiff’s request for further review.
6

Plaintiff filed a Complaint to obtain judicial review of the final decision by the

7 Commissioner. After the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment, the Magistrate
8 Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 21). The Magistrate Judge
9 concluded that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s non-disability
10 determination at step five of the disability analysis. The Magistrate Judge found that
11 the transcript hearing indicates the ALJ presented incomplete hypotheticals to the
12 vocational expert at the hearing, mistakenly omitting the standing and walking
13 limitations. Absent the standing and walking limitations, the Magistrate Judge found
14 that the conclusion that Plaintiff can perform the light work of table worker and final
15 assembler is not supported by the record.
16

The Report and Recommendation filed on August 25, 2017 states, “Within

17 fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of third Report and Recommendation,
18 ‘any party may serve written objections.’ 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)&(C).” The docket
19 reflects that no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.
20 II. Review of the Report and Recommendation
21

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

22 of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28
23 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those
24 portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or
25 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”
26 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a
27 Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416
28 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th
-2-

16cv1479-WQH-KSC

1 Cir. 2003) (en banc).
2

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the decision of the

3 ALJ, the administrative record, and the submissions of the parties. The Court adopts
4 the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
5 III. Conclusion
6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

7 21) is adopted in its entirety; (2) the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17) filed
8 by Plaintiff is granted; (3) the cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19) filed
9 by Defendant is denied. The case is remanded for further proceedings. The Clerk of
10 the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
11 DATED: September 21, 2017
12
13

WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

16cv1479-WQH-KSC