Meier v. Colvin
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)
JUN 3 0 2017
CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DiSTRiCT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 3:16-cv-01837-BEN-PCL
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
Plaintiff Eugene Meier filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social
Security Commissioner’s1 denial of his application for disability insurance benefits.
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.
Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, and Defendant filed a cross-motion for
summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiffs motion.
On June 9, 2017, Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis issued a thoughtful and
thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant Defendant’s
motion and deny Plaintiffs motion. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were
due June 23, 2017. Neither party has filed any objections.
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a
magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and
recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
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.”
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also
Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor
the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations
that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.
The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The
Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 18). Plaintiff s motion
for summary judgment is DENIED. (Docket No. 14). Defendant’s cross-motion for
summary judgment is GRANTED. (Docket No. 15).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
idmtecTStates District Judge
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?