Rangrej v. Colvin

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation entered on 8/31/15 (Dkt. 30 ) is ADOPTED as follows: 1) The Commissioner's decision finding the Petitioner is not disabled within the meaning of t he Social Security Act is AFFIRMED. 2) The Petition for Review (Dkt. 2 ) is DISMISSED. 3) Judgment shall be entered in favor of the Respondent. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

SHARIF RANGREJ,
Case No. 1:14-CV-00287-EJL-CWD
Petitioner,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Respondent.

INTRODUCTION
On August 31, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Petition for Review be dismissed.
(Dkt. 30.) Any party may challenge a magistrate judge’s proposed recommendation by filing
written objections to the Report within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the
same. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Civil Rule 72.1(b). The district court must then
“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. The district court may accept, reject,
or modify in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate
judge. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Petitioner filed written objections to the Report

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 1

and the Respondent filed a response to the same. (Dkt. 33, 34.) The matter is ripe for the
Court’s consideration. See Local Civil Rule 72.1(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Where
the parties object to a report and recommendation, this Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report which objection is made.” Id. Where, however,
no objections are filed the district court need not conduct a de novo review. In United States
v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003), the court interpreted the requirements
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C):
The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge
must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if
objection is made, but not otherwise. As the Peretz Court instructed, “to the
extent de novo review is required to satisfy Article III concerns, it need not be
exercised unless requested by the parties.” Peretz, 501 U.S. at 939 (internal
citation omitted). Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district
judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties
themselves accept as correct. See Ciapponi, 77 F.3d at 1251 (“Absent an
objection or request for review by the defendant, the district court was not
required to engage in any more formal review of the plea proceeding.”); see
also Peretz, 501 U.S. at 937-39 (clarifying that de novo review not required for
Article III purposes unless requested by the parties) . . . .
See also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, to the
extent that no objections are made, arguments to the contrary are waived. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (objections are waived if they are not filed within fourteen days
of service of the Report and Recommendation). “When no timely objection is filed, the Court

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 2

need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
the recommendation.” Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v.
United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974)).
The Court has reviewed the entire Report as well as the record in this matter for clear
error on the face of the record and none has been found. The Court has also conducted a de
novo review of those portions of the Report to which the Petitioner has objected and finds
as follows.
DISCUSSION
The full procedural background and facts of this case are well articulated in the Report
and the Court incorporates the same in this Order. (Dkt. 30.) Petitioner filed an application
for Supplemental Security Income alleging disability due to chronic back pain. The
application was denied and Petitioner filed an appeal of the final decision to this Court. The
Report concluded that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision finding the
Petitioner was not disabled was supported by substantial evidence in the record and without
legal error. (Dkt. 30.)
This Court has reviewed the original briefing of the parties, the Administrative
Record, the Report, the objections and responses thereto, and the entire record herein. This
review was undertaken with the Court being mindful that the Plaintiff is a pro se litigant and,
as such, the filings and motions are construed liberally. See Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d
1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010). That being said, while pro se litigants are held to less stringent
standards, a litigant's pro se status does not excuse him or her from complying with the
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 3

procedural or substantive rules of the court. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per
curiam); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003). As the Ninth Circuit has held
“an ordinary pro se litigant, like other litigants, must comply strictly with the summary
judgment rules.” Thomas, 611 F.3d at 1150 (citing Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219
(9th Cir. 2007)). Applying these principles here, this Court is in agreement with the reasoning
and conclusion of the Report that the ALJ’s decision should be affirmed.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation entered on August 31, 2015 (Dkt. 30) is ADOPTED as follows:
1)

The Commissioner’s decision finding the Petitioner is not disabled within the
meaning of the Social Security Act is AFFIRMED.

2)

The Petition for Review (Dkt. 2) is DISMISSED.

3)

Judgment shall be entered in favor of the Respondent.
DATED: February 18, 2016

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 4