Hermiz v. Berryhill
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Roger T. Benitez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Report and Recommendation in a Social Security disability case where neither party filed objections. The court adopted the R&R, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, and affirmed the Commissioner's decision.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 21).” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), a district judge must conduct a de novo review of any part of the R&R to which a party objects. However, as the order notes, if no objections are filed, the court is not required to conduct a de novo review, though it may do so. The court stated it 'considered and agrees' with the R&R, which is a permissible exercise of discretion when no objections are present. |
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment“Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Docket No. 13).” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's finding that the ALJ provided specific reasons for the conclusion of non-disability and that the record supported the ALJ's findings. In Social Security cases, the standard of review is whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence. The Magistrate Judge found the ALJ's credibility findings were supported by clear and convincing reasons (such as daily activities, conservative treatment, and inconsistency with objective evidence). The District Court's adoption of this finding is consistent with the law. |
Grant of Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment“Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Docket No. 16).” | de novo | agree with court By granting the defendant's motion and denying the plaintiff's, the court affirmed the administrative decision. This follows logically from the finding that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the ALJ's findings were erroneous. |
Affirmance of the Commissioner's Final Decision“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed.” | de novo | agree with court This is the operative relief resulting from the summary judgment rulings. The court correctly affirmed the agency decision based on the adopted R&R. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation in the absence of objections. It cites the correct Ninth Circuit authority (Reyna-Tapia and Wang) to support the conclusion that de novo review is not mandatory when parties do not object. The court explicitly states it considered and agreed with the R&R, which satisfies the requirement for the district judge to make an independent determination, even if not strictly de novo. The substantive findings regarding the ALJ's credibility assessment are attributed to the Magistrate Judge, and the District Court's adoption of those findings is appropriate.
Opinion
| FILED | | AUG 26 2019 | 3 DISTRICT OF Lv 4 BY DEPUTY | 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 || LANCE HERMIZ, Case No.: 3:18-cv-01035-BEN-KSC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER: 11 || (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 || NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting RECOMMENDATION; 13 Commissioner of Social Security, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 14 Defendant.| MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; and (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 17 JUDGMENT 18 Plaintiff Lance Hermiz filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social 19 || Security Commissioner’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and 20 |) supplemental security income benefits. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, 21 || and Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to 22 || Plaintiff's motion. 23 On August 9, 2019, the Honorable Karen 8. Crawford issued a thoughtful and 24 || thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff's 25 || motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary 26 ||judgment. Magistrate Judge Crawford found that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) 27 || provided specific reasons for his conclusion of Plaintiff's non-disability and that the 28 record supports the ALJ’s findings. With respect to Plaintiff's credibility and claims of 1 || greater disability, Judge Crawford found that the ALJ specifically identified which 2 |/portions of Plaintiff's testimony were not credible and provided clear and convincing 3 |jreasons for discounting that testimony. Judge Crawford explained that the ALJ properly 4 evaluated, among other things, Plaintiff’s participation in daily activities, his conservative 5 ||treatment for the severe symptoms alleged, and the inconsistency between the objective 6 ||evidence and the severe symptoms alleged. Objections to the Report and 7 ||Recommendation were due August 19, 2019. Neither party has filed any objections. 8 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 9 || magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 10 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 11 |/recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 12 However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 13 ||judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 14 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also 15 || Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 16 statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 17 || that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 18 The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 19 |} Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 21). Plaintiffs motion 20 || for summary judgment is DENIED. (Docket No. 13). Defendant’s cross-motion for 21 |)summary judgment is GRANTED. (Docket No. 16). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED 22 the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. The Clerk 23 shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate the case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: August 2019 ties. How, Reger T. Benite 27 ited States DistrietJudge 28