Mitchell v. Berryhill

Filing 20

ORDER Adopting 19 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge; Denying 11 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; and Granting 14 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court has considered the pleadin gs and memoranda of the parties as well as the administrative record, and has made a review and determination in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Stormes' Repor t and Recommendation [Doc. No. 19] in its entirety. The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 11]; and the Court grants Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 14]. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the appeal. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 2/21/2019. (rmc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RYON ANDREW MITCHELL,

Case No.: 18cv276-MMA (NLS)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

15
16

[Doc. No. 19]

Defendant.
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

17
18

[Doc. No. 11]

19
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

20
21
22

[Doc. No. 14]

23
24

On February 6, 2018, Plaintiff Ryon Andrew Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) filed this social

25

security appeal challenging the denial of his application for Supplemental Security

26

Income (“SSI”). Doc. No. 1. The Court referred all matters arising in this appeal to the

27

Honorable Nita L. Stormes, United States Magistrate Judge, for report and

28
1
18cv276-MMA (NLS)

1

recommendation pursuant to section 636(b)(1)(B) of title 28 United States Code and Civil

2

Local Rule 72.1. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 72.1; Doc. No. 3.

3

The parties have filed motions for summary judgment. Doc. Nos. 11, 14. On

4

January 30, 2019, Judge Stormes issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report

5

recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion and grant Defendant’s cross-

6

motion. Doc. No. 19. Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation and the

7

time for filing objections has expired. See id. at 22 (“Any party may file written

8

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties on or before February 14,

9

2019.”); see also Docket.

10

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and

11

recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

12

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a report and recommendation

13

(“R&R”), “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those

14

portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas

15

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When neither party objects to an R&R, or to

16

portions thereof, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review, or “any

17

review at all.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149; see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000

18

n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.

19

2003) (en banc). A district judge may nevertheless “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

20

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. §

21

636(b)(1); Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006); Or. Natural

22

Desert Ass’n v. Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 2006).

23

The Court has considered the pleadings and memoranda of the parties as well as

24

the administrative record, and has made a review and determination in accordance with

25

the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Accordingly:

26
27

1.

The Court ADOPTS Judge Stormes’ Report and Recommendation [Doc.

No. 19] in its entirety;

28
2
18cv276-MMA (NLS)

1

2.

2

11]; and

3

3.

4

[Doc. No. 14].

5
6
7
8

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the
appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 21, 2019

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
18cv276-MMA (NLS)