Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01166/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01166-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405wc Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

1

16-CV-1166 JLS (WVG)

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

JOSEPH ALLEN MCCOLLOUGH, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-CV-1166 JLS (WVG)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING R&R; (2) 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND 

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 15, 17, 19)

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court (1) deny Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment, and (2) grant Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. 

(ECF No. 19.) No party filed an objection or a reply to Judge Gallo’s R&R. For the 

following reasons, the Court (1) ADOPTS Judge Gallo’s R&R in its entirety, (2) DENIES

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 15), and (3) GRANTS Defendant’s 

Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 17).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-01166-JLS-WVG Document 20 Filed 08/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-CV-1166 JLS (WVG)

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

BACKGROUND

Judge Gallo’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual and 

procedural histories underlying the instant Motions for Summary Judgment. (See R&R 6–

20.

1

) This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

court’s duties regarding a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court 

“shall 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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also United 

States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980). In the absence of a timely objection, 

however, “the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 

record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s 

note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 510 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

ANALYSIS

As discussed, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed an objection or a reply to Judge 

Gallo’s R&R. And after review of the moving papers and Judge Gallo’s R&R, the Court 

finds “that there is no clear error on the face of the record” and thus the Court may “accept 

the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell, 510 

F.2d at 206). Additionally, the Court agrees with Judge Gallo’s conclusions that the 

Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) determination was not erroneous because (1) the

decision was based on substantial evidence, (R&R 20–30), and (2) the ALJ did not err in 

rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective testimony, (id. at 30–40). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS

Judge Gallo’s R&R and thus DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and 

GRANTS Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.

 

1 Pin citations to docketed material refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each 

page.

Case 3:16-cv-01166-JLS-WVG Document 20 Filed 08/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-CV-1166 JLS (WVG)

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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court (1) ADOPTS Judge Gallo’s R&R in its entirety, 

(2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 15), and (3) GRANTS

Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 17). This Order ends the 

litigation in this matter. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court SHALL close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01166-JLS-WVG Document 20 Filed 08/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3