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)

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