Wiley v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 17

ORDER: (1) Adopting 16 R&R; (2) Denying Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Granting Defendant's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 3/5/2018. (mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LORI WILEY,

Case No.: 17-CV-202 JLS (NLS)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING R&R; (2)
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

15
16

Defendant.

17

(ECF Nos. 13, 14, 16)

18
19

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Nita L Stormes’s Report and

20

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court (1) deny Plaintiff’s Motion for

21

Summary Judgment, and (2) grant Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.

22

(ECF No. 16.) No party filed an objection or a reply to Judge Stormes’s R&R. For the

23

following reasons, the Court (1) ADOPTS Judge Stormes’s R&R in its entirety, (2)

24

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 13), and (3) GRANTS

25

Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 14).

26

///

27

///

28

///
1
17-CV-202 JLS (NLS)

1

BACKGROUND

2

Judge Stormes’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual and

3

procedural histories underlying the instant Motions for Summary Judgment. (See R&R 2–

4

9.)1 This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

5

LEGAL STANDARD

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district

7

court’s duties regarding a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court

8

“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection

9

is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

10

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also

11

United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d

12

614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). In the absence of a timely objection, however, “the Court need

13

only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

14

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S.

15

Dist. Court, 510 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

16

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

17

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

18

ANALYSIS

19

As discussed, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed an objection or a reply to Judge

20

Stormes’s R&R. Plaintiff’s objections were due January 26, 2018—none were filed.

21

(R&R 22.) And, after review of the moving papers and Judge Stormes’s R&R, the Court

22

finds “that there is no clear error on the face of the record” and thus the Court may “accept

23

the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell, 510

24

F.2d at 206). Additionally, the Court agrees with Judge Stormes’s conclusions that the

25

Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) determination was not erroneous because (1) the ALJ

26
27
28

1

Pin citations to docketed material refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each
page.
2
17-CV-202 JLS (NLS)

1

properly rejected Plaintiff’s subjective testimony, (see R&R 10–15), and (2) the ALJ

2

properly considered the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating doctors, (id. at 15–21).

3

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Stormes’s R&R and thus DENIES Plaintiff’s

4

Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANTS Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary

5

Judgment.

6

CONCLUSION

7

For the foregoing reasons, the Court (1) ADOPTS Judge Stormes’s R&R in its

8

entirety, (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 13), and (3)

9

GRANTS Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 14). This Order

10

ends the litigation in this matter. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court SHALL close the file.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2018

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17-CV-202 JLS (NLS)