Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00807/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00807-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

- 1 - 06cv807

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT E. TOLLSTAM

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv807-BEN (LSP)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

vs. AND RECOMMENDATION 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff’s

claim for disability benefits. Cross motions for summary judgment were filed and the motions

referred to the Magistrate Judge. On July 24, 2007, Magistrate Judge Leo S. Papas issued a Report

and Recommendation recommending that the decision denying continued benefits to Plaintiff be

affirmed. No objections have been filed. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the wellreasoned Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, denies Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment, and grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision” of a Magistrate

Judge on a dispositive matter. F.R.C.P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Moreover, “the

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to

which objection is made.” Id. “The 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....Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo,

Case 3:06-cv-00807-BEN-LSP Document 15 Filed 08/29/07 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 - 06cv807

findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), cert denied, 157 L.Ed.2d 182 (2003)(emphasis in

original).

Plaintiff is a 43 year-old man with some high school education and past relevant

experience as a construction worker, bindery worker, assembler, and porter. He initially sought,

and was granted, disability benefits from October 2000 to October 2004 as a result of injuries

received at a construction site. However, as a result of medical treatment his total disability was

found to cease in October 2004. Plaintiff appeals that decision. 

The Social Security Administration found that while Plaintiff did have a combination of 

impairments that prevented him from performing his past relevant work, he still has the residual

functional capacity to perform sedentary work existing in significant numbers in the local and

national economy. As a result, his claim for disability benefits was denied. 

In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge correctly and exhaustively

considered the Defendant’s decision and the Administrative Law Judges’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s

pain testimony and found no error. This Court adopts in full the Report and Recommendation. 

The Defendant’s conclusion that Plaintiff is no longer disabled is substantially supported

by the evidence. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied and Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment is Granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 29, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00807-BEN-LSP Document 15 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 2