Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01500/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01500-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

– 1 – 15cv1500 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTOPHER L. FRISBIE, 

 Plaintiff, 

Case No. 15-cv-1500-BAS(BGS) 

ORDER: 

(1)APPROVING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 

ENTIRETY; 

(2)DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; 

(3)GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND 

[ECF Nos. 17, 18] 

 v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

On July 7, 2015, Plaintiff Christopher L. Frisbie, proceeding in forma 

pauperis, commenced this action under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 

challenging the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s denial of 

disability benefits. Thereafter, the Court referred this matter to United States 

Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal, who issued a Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”) on March 29, 2016, recommending that this Court: (1) deny Plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment, and (2) grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary 

judgment. The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on April 13, 2016. (R&R 

Case 3:15-cv-01500-BAS-BGS Document 22 Filed 04/18/16 Page 1 of 3
 – 2 – 15cv1500 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

24:25-26:6.) Both parties are represented by counsel, but to date, neither party has 

filed any objections. 

I. ANALYSIS 

The court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are 

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[t]he statute 

makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); 

see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) 

(concluding that where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation 

to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute 

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the 

parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This rule of 

law is well-established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. 

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a 

R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”); Nelson v. 

Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in 

its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the report despite 

the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 

(S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 

In the social-security context, the district court’s jurisdiction is limited to 

determining whether the Social Security Administration’s denial of benefits is 

supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. See 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g). A district court may overturn a decision to deny benefits only if it is not 

supported by substantial evidence or if the decision is based on legal error. See

Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995); Magallenes v. Bowen, 881 

Case 3:15-cv-01500-BAS-BGS Document 22 Filed 04/18/16 Page 2 of 3
 – 3 – 15cv1500 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). The Ninth Circuit defines substantial evidence as 

“more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence 

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Andrews, 

53 F.3d at 1039. Determinations of credibility, resolution of conflicts in medical 

testimony, and all other ambiguities are to be resolved by the administrative law 

judge (“ALJ”). See id.; Magallenes, 881 F.2d at 750. The decision of the ALJ will be 

upheld if the evidence is “susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” 

Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1040. 

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on April 13, 2016. However, 

no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do 

so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the 

parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and the R&R, the Court concludes that 

Judge Skomal’s reasoning is sound and accurate in recommending that this Court 

deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross-motion 

for summary judgment. Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS 

ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER 

In light of the foregoing, the Court approves and ADOPTS IN ITS 

ENTIRETY the R&R, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 18, 2016 

Case 3:15-cv-01500-BAS-BGS Document 22 Filed 04/18/16 Page 3 of 3