Meier v. Colvin

Filing 19

ORDER: (1) Adopting Report and Recommendation; (2) Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 6/28/2017.(knb)

Download PDF
1 2 F» FD 3 JUN 3 0 2017 4 CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DiSTRiCT OF CALIFORNIA [BY DEPUTY 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 Case No.: 3:16-cv-01837-BEN-PCL EUGENE MEIER, Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER: NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Defendant. 16 (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; and 17 18 (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff Eugene Meier filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s1 denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. 23 24 25 26 27 28 i When Plaintiff initiated this action, Carolyn W. Colvin was serving as the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Nancy A. Berryhill is now serving as the Acting Commissioner. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Berryhill is automatically substituted as a party. l 3:16-cv-01837-BEN-PCL /• V 1 Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, and Defendant filed a cross-motion for 2 summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiffs motion. 3 On June 9, 2017, Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis issued a thoughtful and 4 thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant Defendant’s 5 motion and deny Plaintiffs motion. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were 6 due June 23, 2017. Neither party has filed any objections. 7 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 8 magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 9 § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 10 recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 11 However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 12 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 13 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also 14 Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 15 the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 16 that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 17 The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 18 Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 18). Plaintiff s motion 19 for summary judgment is DENIED. (Docket No. 14). Defendant’s cross-motion for 20 summary judgment is GRANTED. (Docket No. 15). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 Dated: June , 2017 HonfRogep-T: Benitez idmtecTStates District Judge 25 26 27 28 2 3:16-cv-01837-BEN-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?