Vo v. Colvin

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Judge James L. Robart. The court DENIES Mr. Vos motion for oral argument, ADOPTS the report and recommendation, AFFIRMS Defendant Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin's final decision, and DISMISSES this case with prejudice. (AD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

HAI VINH VO,
Plaintiff,

10
11

CASE NO. C16-0488JLR
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

v.

12 CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
13
14

Defendant.
This matter comes before the court on the report and recommendation of United

15 States Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida (R&R (Dkt. # 18)) and Plaintiff Hai Vinh
16 Vo’s objections thereto and motion for oral argument (Obj. (Dkt. # 19)). Having
17
18

reviewed the foregoing documents, along with all other relevant documents and the
applicable law, the court DENIES Mr. Vo’s motion for oral argument, ADOPTS the

19

report and recommendation, AFFIRMS Defendant Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin’s
20

final decision, and DISMISSES this case with prejudice.
21
22
23

I.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Vo applied for and was denied disability insurance benefits. (See

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

1 Administrative Record (“AR”) (Dkt. # 11) at 13.) After his application was denied, he
2 requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) . (Id.) The ALJ
3 conducted a hearing and found that Mr. Vo was not disabled. (See id. at 13-25.) Mr. Vo
4
5

sought review of that decision within the agency, and the Appeals Council denied his
request for review. (See id. at 1-7.) He then appealed to this court. (See Compl. (Dkt.

6

# 1).) Magistrate Judge Tsuchida issued a report and recommendation, in which
7

Magistrate Judge Tsuchida recommends that this court affirm the ALJ’s decision and
8
9
10
11

dismiss the case with prejudice. (See R&R.)
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court has jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge’s report and

12 recommendation on dispositive matters. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge
13 must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
14 properly objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
15 or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.
16 § 636(b)(1). The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and recommendation
17
18

to which specific written objection is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

19

III.

DISCUSSION

20

Mr. Vo argues that Magistrate Judge Tsuchida incorrectly found Mr. Vo to be
21
22
23

capable of performing work as an assembler. (See Obj. at 1-8.) Specifically, Mr. Vo
argues that the ALJ did not account for the testimony and analysis of vocational expert

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

1 John Berg. (See id.) This argument simply repeats one of the arguments Mr. Vo made in
2 his briefing to Magistrate Judge Tsuchida. (See Op. Br. (Dkt. # 13) at 6-7, 11, 13.)
3 Magistrate Judge Tsuchida noted that the ALJ accounted for Mr. Berg’s opinion and
4
5

found that it should be given very little weight. (See R&R at 8 (citing AR at 24).) The
ALJ gave Mr. Berg’s opinion little weight because Mr. Berg did not consider all of the

6

medical evidence and therefore determined that Mr. Vo was unable to perform work as
7

an assembler based on a different residual functional capacity than that assessed by the
8
9
10

ALJ. (See AR at 24.) Magistrate Judge Tsuchida found that the ALJ’s finding was
supported by substantial evidence and that Mr. Vo did not meet his burden of proving

11 harmful error. (See R&R at 8-9.) The court has examined the record and finds
12 Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s reasoning persuasive.
13

Mr. Vo also moves for oral argument. (See Mot. (Dkt. # 19-1) at 1.) Because Mr.

14 Vo simply raises arguments in his objections that were already made in his briefing to
15 Magistrate Judge Tsuchida, the court finds no reason to depart from the court’s normal
16 practice the issues on the pleadings. See Local Civil Rule 7(b)(4).
17
18

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ORDERS as follows:

19

(1)

The court DENIES the motion for oral argument;

(2)

The court ADOPTS the report and recommendation;

(3)

The court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision and DISMISSES

20
21
22
23

this case with prejudice; and

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3

1

(4)

The clerk shall direct copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to

2 Magistrate Judge Tsuchida.
3

DATED this 28th day of October, 2016.

4

6

A

7

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

5

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 4