Dewey v. Astrue

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND AFFIRMING COMMISSIONER'S DECISION by Judge John C Coughenour. (TF)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

TIMOTHY L. DEWEY,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. C12-5788-JCC
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
AFFIRMING COMMISSIONER’S
DECISION

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
13
14
15

Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and

16 Recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 19). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing
17 and the relevant record, the Court hereby REJECTS the objections (Dkt. No. 19) and ADOPTS
18 the R&R (Dkt. No. 18) for the reasons explained herein.
19

A district court reviews de novo the portions of an R&R to which a party has filed timely

20 objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Plaintiff has filed objections to all of
21 the R&R’s recommendations and conclusions. (See Dkt. No. 19.) As is evident from those
22 objections, however, they merely restate arguments that Plaintiff made to the Magistrate Judge,
23 all of which are thoroughly addressed by the R&R. Each of Plaintiff’s objections begins by
24 referring the Court to the pages in Plaintiff’s opening brief that addresses the argument found in
25
26
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND AFFIRMING
COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
PAGE - 1

1 the objection.1 Nonetheless, the Court has independently reviewed Plaintiff’s arguments and the
2 relevant record. Having done so, the Court agrees with the analysis and conclusions in the R&R
3 and ORDERS as follows:
4

(1)

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18).

5

(2)

The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this case is

6 DISMISSED with prejudice.
7

(3)

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to send copies of this Order to the

8 parties and to the Honorable James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge.
9

DATED this 16th day of September 2013.

10
11
12

A

13
14
15

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

To the extent that it differs from his prior argument regarding the testimony of the
vocational expert (“VE”) at step five of the sequential disability analysis, the Court rejects
Plaintiff’s argument based on Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007). Consistent with
SSR 00-4p, Massachi requires the ALJ to determine whether a conflict exists between the
testimony of the VE and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) by asking the VE if his
or her testimony is consistent with the DOT. Id. at 1150, 1153. If a conflict exists, then the ALJ
must determine whether the VE’s explanation for the conflict is reasonable. Id. at 1153. Here the
ALJ twice asked the VE whether his testimony was consistent with the DOT. (AR 74, 77.) Both
times, the VE confirmed that it was. (Id.) Accordingly, there was no “conflict” for the ALJ to
resolve.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND AFFIRMING
COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
PAGE - 2