Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02663/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02663-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

FILED.

p FEB IS

ys/\ y~+^

1

2

3

4

v&m# 5 «!V’

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MATTHEW B. TAYLOR, Case No.: 15-cv-02663-BEN-JLB

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION;

13 v.

14 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security, 15 (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; and

Defendant.

16

17

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

18

19

20 PlaintiffMatthew B. Taylor filed this action seeking judicial review ofthe Social

Security Commissioner’s denial ofhis application for disability insurance benefits.

(Docket No. 1). Plaintifffiled a motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 28), and

Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiffs

motion (Docket Nos. 29-30).

21

22

23

24 i

25

26

i During the underlying administrative proceedings and in filing the operative complaint,

Plaintiffwas represented by counsel. In filing his motion for summary judgment,

Plaintiffproceeds pro se.

27

28

l

15-CV-02663-BEN-JLB

Case 3:15-cv-02663-BEN-JLB Document 32 Filed 02/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 On December 29, 2016, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt issued a thoughtful and

thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiffs

motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary

judgment. (Docket No. 31). Magistrate Judge Burkhardt found that even construing

Plaintiffs filings liberally, he failed to adequately dispute the Administrative Law

Judge’s (“ALJ”) findings and determination that he is not disabled and, for this reason,

summary judgment in his favor is not warranted. See Indep. Towers ofWash. v.

Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Our circuit has repeatedly admonished

that we cannot ‘manufacture arguments for an appellant’.... Rather, we ‘review only

issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.’

Significantly, ‘a bare assertion of an issue does not preserve a claim.’”). Although

Plaintifffailed to adequately dispute the ALJ’s findings and determination, Magistrate

Judge Burkhardt nonetheless considered the ALJ’s decision and concluded that the ALJ

applied the correct legal standards and that his opinion is supported by substantial

evidence. Finally, Magistrate Judge Burkhardt found that Plaintiffs newly submitted

evidence does not merit remand because Plaintifffailed to show that the new evidence is

material and that good cause exists for his failure to incorporate the evidence into the

administrative record.

Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due January 18, 2017.

Neither party has filed any objections. For the reasons that follow, the Report and

Recommendation is ADOPTED.

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

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part ofthe [report and

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the districtjudge must review the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo ifobjection is made, but not otherwise.”

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

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

15-CV-02663-BEN-JLB

Case 3:15-cv-02663-BEN-JLB Document 32 Filed 02/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor

the statute requires a districtjudge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations

that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The

Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 31). Plaintiffs motion

for summary judgment is DENIED. (Docket No. 28). Defendant’s cross-motion for

summary judgment is GRANTED. (Docket No. 29).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Dated: February, , 2017

Hon. Roger T. Benitez N

11 United States District Judge

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

15-cv-02663-BEN-JLB

Case 3:15-cv-02663-BEN-JLB Document 32 Filed 02/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3