Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00765/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00765-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision (regarding payment of benefits)

---

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

ANH VAN NGUYEN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv765-WQH-NLS

ORDER

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

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

(ECF No. 17) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes, recommencing

that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) be denied and that

Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) be granted.

BACKGROUND

On August 19, 2011, Plaintiff Anh Van Nguyen filed an application for social

security disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 10-3 at

1). Plaintiff’s claim was denied at the initial level and upon reconsideration. (ECF No.

10-3 at 9, 23). Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an administrative law judge

(“ALJ”), which was held on August 5, 2013. (ECF No. 10-2 at 57). On October 16,

2013, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision, concluding that Plaintiff was not

disabled. (ECF No. 10-2 at 9-20). On February 11, 2015, the Appeals Council for the

Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff’s request for further review. (ECF No.

- 1 - 15cv765-WQH-NLS

Case 3:15-cv-00765-WQH-NLS Document 18 Filed 03/30/16 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

10-2 at 2–4).

On April 7, 2015, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, commenced this action

seeking judicial review of Defendant’s decision. (ECF No. 1). On October 22, 2015,

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 14). On November 12, 2015,

Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 15). On February

2, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued the report and recommendation. (ECF No. 17). 

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 that the ALJ’s decision to deny Nguyen benefits was

supported by substantial evidence. 

The report and recommendation states that any party may file written objections

with the Court no later than February 17, 2016 and that “failure to file objections within

the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s

order.” Id. at 26. 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 the 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)(1). 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

judge.” 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 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). 

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

- 2 - 15cv765-WQH-NLS

Case 3:15-cv-00765-WQH-NLS Document 18 Filed 03/30/16 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

evidence and the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the report and recommendation (ECF No.

17) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff

(ECF No. 14) is DENIED; and (3) the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by

Defendant (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

for Defendant and against Plaintiff. 

DATED: March 30, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 15cv765-WQH-NLS

Case 3:15-cv-00765-WQH-NLS Document 18 Filed 03/30/16 Page 3 of 3