Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01744/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01744-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

ESTRELLA ESTILLER ALEDIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv1744-WQHRBB

vs. ORDER

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 22) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks,

recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) be denied

and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) be granted.

BACKGROUND

On May 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits,

alleging disability beginning February 2, 2009. (ECF No. 11-2 at 27). Plaintiff’s claim

was denied at the initial level and upon reconsideration. Id. Plaintiff then requested a

hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), which was held on March 4, 2011. 

Id. On March 11, 2011, the ALJ issued a written decision finding that Plaintiff had not

been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from February 2, 2009

through the date of the ALJ’s decision. Id. at 33. On April 25, 2012, the Appeals

- 1 - 12cv1744-WQH-RBB

Case 3:12-cv-01744-WQH-RBB Document 23 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 3
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

Council for the Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff’s request for further

review. Id. at 2.

On July 16, 2012, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, commenced this action

seeking judicial review of Defendant’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

On February 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 18). 

On March 28, 2013, Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF

No. 19).

On July 2, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. 

(ECF No. 22). The Report and Recommendation recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion

for Summary Judgment be denied and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment be granted. The Magistrate Judge found, inter alia, that the ALJ “provided

specific, detailed bases for his credibility assessment, which is supported by the

evidence in the record. Accordingly, reversal or remand is not warranted.” Id. at 22. 

The Report and Recommendation states:

Any party may file written objections [to the Report and

Recommendation] with the Court and serve a copy on all parties on or before July 24, 2013.... Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed on or before August 7, 2013. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order.

Id. at 22-23 (citation omitted).

The docket reflects that no objections to the Report and Recommendation have

been filed.

REVIEW OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a

Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416

- 2 - 12cv1744-WQH-RBB

Case 3:12-cv-01744-WQH-RBB Document 23 Filed 08/13/13 Page 2 of 3
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.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th

Cir. 2003) (en banc).

After review of the Report and Recommendation, the written opinion of the ALJ,

the administrative record, and the submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial

evidence and the ALJ applied the correct legal standards.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

22) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF

No. 18) is DENIED; and (3) Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF

No. 19) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment for Defendant and against

Plaintiff.

DATED: August 13, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv1744-WQH-RBB

Case 3:12-cv-01744-WQH-RBB Document 23 Filed 08/13/13 Page 3 of 3