Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00276/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00276-0/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)

---

-1- 16cv276-MMA (PCL)

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 

JESSICA ANN POHLMAN, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv276-MMA (PCL)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 

[Doc. No. 15] 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 

[Doc. No. 12] 

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

[Doc. No. 13] 

 On February 2, 2016, Plaintiff Jessica Ann Pohlman filed this appeal pursuant to 

Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the denial of 

her application for disability insurance benefits. See Doc. No. 1. The Court referred all 

matters arising in this social security appeal to the Honorable Peter C. Lewis, United 

States Magistrate Judge, for report and recommendation pursuant to section 636(b)(1)(B) 

of title 28 of the United States Code and Civil Local Rule 72.1. See Doc. No. 4; 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 72.1. 

 On January 13, 2017, Judge Lewis issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report 

containing findings and conclusions, upon which he bases his Recommendation that the 

Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross motion 

for summary judgment. See Doc. No. 15. Neither party objected to the Report and 

Recommendation, and the time for filing objections has expired. 

Case 3:16-cv-00276-MMA-PCL Document 16 Filed 02/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
 -2- 16cv276-MMA (PCL)

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

 The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and 

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

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 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 

[R&R] 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 

R&R 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 judge may 

nevertheless “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Wilkins v. 

Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006); Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. 

Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 2006). 

 The Court has considered the pleadings and memoranda of the parties as well as 

the administrative record, and has made a review and determination in accordance with 

the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Accordingly, 

 1. The Court ADOPTS Judge Lewis’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 

15] in its entirety; 

 2. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 

12]; and, 

 3. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment 

[Doc. No. 13]. 

 The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate the action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2017

 _____________________________ 

 Hon. Michael M. Anello 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-00276-MMA-PCL Document 16 Filed 02/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2