Augustine v. Berryhill
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Roger T. Benitez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's 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.” | 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), a district court must conduct a de novo review of any part of the R&R to which a party has properly objected. Where no objections are filed, as in this case, the court is not required to conduct a de novo review but may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation. 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“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.” | de novo | agree with court The court denied the plaintiff's motion based on the Magistrate Judge's findings that the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject the plaintiff's subjective allegations of impairment. The R&R noted that the ALJ's findings were supported by objective medical evidence, conservative treatments, and medical opinions, and that the plaintiff's hearing testimony undermined her claims. In the absence of objections, the district court's adoption of these findings is consistent with the law governing judicial review of Social Security decisions, which requires affirming the ALJ's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. |
Grant of Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment“Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.” | de novo | agree with court The court granted the defendant's cross-motion, effectively affirming the Commissioner's final decision. This follows from the same reasoning as the denial of the plaintiff's motion: the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including objective medical evidence and the plaintiff's own testimony. The court's adoption of the R&R's conclusion that the ALJ's findings were supported by the record is legally sound. |
Affirmance of the Commissioner's Final Decision“the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s final decision is AFFIRMED.” | de novo | agree with court The court affirmed the administrative decision, which is the standard remedy when a claimant fails to demonstrate that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence or was based on legal error. The court's reliance on the R&R's findings that the ALJ's decision was supported by objective evidence and the claimant's testimony is appropriate. |
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, citing the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Reyna-Tapia and Wang). The court explicitly states that it considered and agreed with the R&R, which is a valid basis for adoption when no objections are filed. The substantive reasoning for the underlying Social Security decision is attributed to the Magistrate Judge's R&R, which the district court adopted. While the district court's order itself does not detail the substantial evidence analysis, its adoption of the R&R's findings is legally sufficient given the lack of objections.
Opinion
FILED 3 □ | JUN 102020 □□ 4 CLERK US DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTBICT OF CALIFORNIA ; BY DEPUTY 6 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10. 11 || EDNA AUGUSTINE, | Case No.: 3:19-cv-0826-BEN-RBM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: . Lo _ (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of RECOMMENDATION; 15 Social Security, 16 . Defendant.| (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S -| MOTION FOR SUMMARY 17 JUDGMENT; AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 19 . CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT □ 21 [Docket Nos. 14 and 15]
22 Plaintiff Edna Augustine filed this action for judicial review of the Social Security 23 Commissioner’s! denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. (Docket No, 24 .
26 When Plaintiff initiated this action, Nancy A. Berryhill was serving as the Acting 27 || Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Andrew Saul is now serving as the 2g Commissioner. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Mr. Saul is automatically substituted as a party.
1 Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and Defendant filed a cross-motion for 2 ||summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiffs motion. . 3 On April 14, 2020, Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro issued a 4 || thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court 5 ||deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for 6 summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Montenegro found the Administrative Law Judge _ 7 ||(*ALJ”) provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject Plaintiff's subjective 8 allegations of impairment and the record supports the ALJ’s findings. Magistrate Judge □ 9 ||Montenegro concluded the ALJ findings were based on objective medical evidence, the 10 |) conservative nature of Plaintiffs treatments, and medical opinions from treating, 11 |lconsulting, and examining physicians. These factors generally did not support Plaintiff's 12. subjective claims of disability. The ALJ also specifically found Plaintiffs hearing 13 |/testimony undermined her claims of disability. Because Magistrate Judge Montenegro 14 ||recommended affirming the ALJ’s decision, Magistrate Judge Montenegro did not 15 j/analyze Plaintiff s request to “credit-as-true” the disability and award benefits. 16 || Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by April 28, 2020. Neither 17 party has filed any objections. 18 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 19 || magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 20 ||636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 21 |!recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 22 However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 23 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 24 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also 25 || Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005), “Neither the Constitution nox 26 statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations tha 27 parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 28 2 .
] The Court need not conduct de nove review given the absence of objections. The 2 Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the 3 1}Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's motion for summary 4 ||judgment is DENIED. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 5 || Accordingly, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s final decision is 6 || AFFIRMED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate the case. 7\| ITISSOORDERED. — g . . / - □ 9 || Date: june 2, 2020 Litt, KK XR RE ( aed Sete: Dist , Indge 13 | 14 15 16 □ 18 .
21 : 72 | . 23 25 26 27 oe 28°