Prines v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 36

ORDER granting 31 Motion to Affirm; ORDER adopting 35 Report and Recommendation; ORDER denying 27 Motion to Remand ; Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/10/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

MATT G. PRINES,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:16-CV-1457 JCM (BNW)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler’s report and

14

recommendation (“R&R”) in the matter of Prines v. Berryhill, case number 2:16-cv-01457-JCM-

15

BNW. No objections have been filed, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

16

Magistrate Judge Weksler ruled in her report and recommendation that the administrative

17

law judge (“ALJ”) erred in failing to address Dr. Zdorovyak’s opinion that plaintiff Matt G.

18

Prines could not work, in part, because of his alleged psychiatric disorder. (ECF No. 35). The

19

magistrate judge found that this was harmless error however, as the ALJ considered Prines’

20

mental health elsewhere in the decision and concluded that the alleged disorders were not

21

disabling. Id. The magistrate judge also found that Prines’ allegation that he has schizophrenia

22

or a schizoaffective disorder does not change this analysis because substantial evidence in the

23

record demonstrates that he does not have a disabling mental health condition. Id.

24

The magistrate judge further ruled that the ALJ erred in not properly summarizing Dr.

25

Jahnke’s findings, and in not explaining why Dr. Jahnke’s opinion—that diabetes is difficult to

26

control and that Prines’ psychiatric and cognitive abilities make it even harder to control—was

27

rejected. Id. Nevertheless, because the ALJ considered the difficulty of Prines controlling his

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

diabetes and the severity of his alleged mental impairment elsewhere in the decision, the

2

magistrate judge found that these errors were harmless. Id.

3

Additionally, the magistrate judge found that the ALJ made a typographical error in the

4

decision by writing that Prines could be a “dry cleaner,” rather than a “dry cleaner helper.” Id.

5

The magistrate judge ruled that this was nothing more than a harmless scrivener’s error because

6

the rest of the decision comports with the vocational expert’s testimony that Prines could

7

perform work as a dry cleaner helper, and nothing suggests that the ALJ sought to depart from

8

that testimony. Id.
Thus, the magistrate judge recommends denying Prines’ motion to remand and granting

9
10

the social security commissioner’s motion to affirm the agency decision.

11

This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

12

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects

13

to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo

14

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

15

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

16

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at

17

all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

18

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

19

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United

20

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review

21

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

22

objections were made).

23

Nevertheless, this court conducted a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the

24

recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying

25

briefs, this court finds good cause appears to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings in full.

26

...

27

...

28

...

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Magistrate Judge

3

Weksler’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 35) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in

4

its entirety.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Prines’ motion to remand (ECF No. 27) be, and the
same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the social security commissioner’s motion to affirm the
agency decision (ECF No. 31) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
DATED September 10, 2019.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-