Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01972/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01972-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES I. WYATT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv1972-WQHNLS

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. 16) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes, recommending

that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) be denied and Defendant’s

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) be granted.

BACKGROUND

On October 20, 2009, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance

benefits, alleging disability beginning July 10, 2008. Plaintiff’s claim was denied at the

initial level and upon reconsideration. Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an

administrative law judge (“ALJ”), which was held on May 10, 2011. On September 16,

2011, the ALJ issued a written decision finding that Plaintiff had been under a

disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from July 10, 2008 through April 11,

2011, and Plaintiff’s disability ended April 12, 2011. (Admin. Rec. 27-38, ECF No. 10-

2). On May 30, 2013, the Appeals Council for the Social Security Administration

- 1 - 13cv1972-WQH-NLS

Case 3:13-cv-01972-WQH-NLS Document 17 Filed 07/14/14 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

denied Plaintiff’s request for further review.

On August 23, 2013, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, commenced this action

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

On February 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 12). 

On April 7, 2014, Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No.

15).

On June 16, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. 

(ECF No. 16). 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 “offered

several clear and convincing reasons to justify his determination that Plaintiff’s

subjective description of his limitations and pain was not credible.” Id. at 13. The

Report and Recommendation states that any objections to the Report and

Recommendation must be filed no later than June 30, 2014, and “[t]he parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the Court’s order.” Id. at 13-14 (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

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).

- 2 - 13cv1972-WQH-NLS

Case 3:13-cv-01972-WQH-NLS Document 17 Filed 07/14/14 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

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.

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

No. 12) is DENIED; and (3) Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF

No. 15) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendant and

against Plaintiff.

DATED: July 14, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv1972-WQH-NLS

Case 3:13-cv-01972-WQH-NLS Document 17 Filed 07/14/14 Page 3 of 3