Fay v. Saul

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SUSAN FAY, Case No. 20-cv-02201-BAS-DEB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER: 12 13 (1) APPROVING AND v. ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 RECOMMENDATION IN ITS ENTIRETY (ECF No. 21); 15 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 16 (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Defendant. MOTION FOR SUMMARY 17 JUDGMENT (ECF No. 14); AND 18 19 (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 20 JUDGMENT (ECF No. 19) 21 22 Plaintiff Susan Fay commenced this action under the Social Security Act, 23 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to challenge the Social Security Administration’s denial of her 24 application for disability benefits. Under General Order 707, the Clerk of Court 25 referred this matter to United States Magistrate Daniel E. Butcher for a proposed 26 disposition. (ECF No. 2.) 27 On May 26, 2022, Judge Butcher issued a Report and Recommendation 1 judgment, and (2) grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (R&R 2 13:15–21, ECF No. 21.) The time for filing objections expired on June 10, 2022. 3 (Id. 14:1–3.) Both parties are represented by counsel. Neither party has filed any 4 objections nor requested additional time to do so. Hence, the R&R is ripe for 5 consideration. 6 I. ANALYSIS 7 The court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are 8 made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 9 the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[t]he 10 statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s 11 findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 12 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see 13 also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding 14 that where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the 15 magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district 16 judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves 17 accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This rule of law is well- 18 established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 19 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only 20 required when an objection is made to the R & R.”); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 21 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting R&R in its entirety without 22 review because neither party filed objections to the R&R despite the opportunity to 23 do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004). 24 In the social-security context, the district court’s jurisdiction is limited to 25 determining whether the Social Security Administration’s denial of benefits is 26 supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. See 42 U.S.C. § 27 405(g). A district court may overturn a decision to deny benefits only if it is not 1 Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995); Magallenes v. Bowen, 881 2 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). The Ninth Circuit defines substantial evidence as 3 “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence 4 as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Andrews, 5 53 F.3d at 1039. Determinations of credibility, resolution of conflicts in medical 6 testimony, and all other ambiguities are to be resolved by the administrative law 7 judge (“ALJ”). See id.; Magallenes, 881 F.2d at 750. Indeed, the decision of the 8 ALJ will be upheld if the evidence is “susceptible to more than one rational 9 interpretation.” Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1040. 10 In this case, the deadline for filing objections was June 10, 2022. However, no 11 objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so. 12 Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 13 328 F.3d at 1121. 14 Nonetheless, having conducted a review of the R&R, the Court concludes that 15 Judge Butcher’s reasoning is sound and correct in recommending that this Court deny 16 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for 17 summary judgment. Judge Butcher thoroughly and convincingly addressed 18 Plaintiff’s arguments that the ALJ improperly discounted her treating physician’s 19 opinions and Plaintiff’s testimony. (R&R 4:3–13:13.) The Court agrees that 20 substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s disability determination. Therefore, the 21 Court approves and adopts the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 ||. CONCLUSION 2 In light of the foregoing, the Court APPROVES and ADOPTS IN ITS 3 ||ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF No. 21), DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary 4 ||judgment (ECF No. 14), and GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for summary 5 judgment (ECF No. 19). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. The Clerk of the Court shall 6 enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 / 9 ||DATED: June 14, 2022 Lin A (Lyphaa. 6 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28