Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00248/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00248-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

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 - 07cv248WQH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN E. NORMAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv248 WQH (POR)

ORDER

vs.

LINDA McMAHON, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge: 

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc #

23) of United States Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter, filed on March 14, 2008,

recommending that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 13) be denied and

that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 18) be granted.

BACKGROUND

On August 27, 2003, Plaintiff Stephen Norman filed an application for Supplemental

Security Income disability benefits pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 423. On October 23, 2003, Plaintiff’s application was denied by the Social Security

Administration. On January 16, 2004, the Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff’s

application again on reconsideration. On February 17, 2004, Plaintiff requested a hearing

before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). 

Case 3:07-cv-00248-WQH-POR Document 24 Filed 03/28/08 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

- 2 - 07cv248WQH

On August 25, 2005 and April 14, 2006, the ALJ conducted hearings on Plaintiff’s

application. On June 8, 2006, the ALJ issued a written decision denying Plaintiff’s application

for benefits. The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s decision. 

On February 7, 2007, Plaintiff commenced this action for judicial review pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On March 14, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and

Recommendation recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment and grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

APPLICABLE LAW

The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a

Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of

the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and

Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review

the Report and Recommendation de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th

Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

A district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

RULING OF THE COURT

Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in this

case, and this Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court

concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the ALJ gave clear and

convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony regarding his pain, and that the ALJ’s

finding that Plaintiff could perform his past work was supported by substantial evidence. The

Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the ALJ’s decision to deny

Plaintiff’s claim of disability applied the correct legal standards and was supported by

substantial evidence. 

Case 3:07-cv-00248-WQH-POR Document 24 Filed 03/28/08 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

- 3 - 07cv248WQH

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. # 23) is adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 13)

is DENIED. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 18) is GRANTED. 

DATED: March 28, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00248-WQH-POR Document 24 Filed 03/28/08 Page 3 of 3