Brown v. Colvin
Filing
20
ORDER : (1) Adopting Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Granting Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 8/28/2017.(knb)
1
2
IW7 AUe 29 AM IO: It
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GWEYNN MARIE BROWN,
Case No.: 16-cv-2873-BEN-WVG
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION;
NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
15
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; and
Defendant.
16
17
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
18
19
20
PlaintiffGweynn Marie Brown filed this action seeking judicial review of the
21
Social Security Commissioner's' denial of her application for disability insurance
22
benefits and supplemental security income benefits. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
When Plaintiff initiated this action, Carolyn Colvin was serving as the Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Nancy Berryhill is now serving as
the Acting Commissioner. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Berryhill
is automatically substituted as a party.
I
16-cv-2873-BEN-WVG
1 judgment, and Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition
2
to Plaintiffs motion.
3
On July 12, 2017, the Honorable William V. Gallo issued a thoughtful and
4
thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff's
5
motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant's cross-motion for summary
6 judgment. Magistrate Judge Gallo found that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ")
7
provided specific reasons for his conclusion of Plaintiffs non-disability, and that the
8
record supports the ALJ's findings. With respect to Plaintiffs credibility and claims of
9
greater disability, Judge Gallo found that the ALJ specifically identified which portions
10
of Plaintiffs testimony were not credible and provided clear and convincing reasons for
11
discounting that testimony. Judge Gallo explained that the ALJ properly evaluated,
12
among other things, Plaintiffs participation in daily activities, her conservative treatment
13
for the severe symptoms alleged, and the inconsistency between the objective evidence
14
and the severe symptoms alleged. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were
15
due August 3, 2017. Neither party has filed any objections.
16
A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a
17
magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.
18
ยง 636(b)(l). "[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and
19
recommendation] that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
20
However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate
21
judge's findings and recommendations de novo
22
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane); see also
23
Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor
24
the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations
25
that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.
if objection is made, but not otherwise."
26
The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The
27
Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 19). Plaintiff's motion
28
for summary judgment is DENIED. (Docket No. 17). Defendant's cross-motion for
2
16-cv-2873-BEN-WVG
.
'
,,
1
summary judgment is GRANTED. (Docket No. 18). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED
2
that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. The Clerk
3
shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate the case.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7
Dated: August
.U'{o 17
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16-cv-2873-BEN-WVG
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?