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)

Download PDF
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?