Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02266/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02266-3/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 (DIWW)

---

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

CANDICE A. HENRY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2266 WQH (AJB)

ORDER

vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge: 

The matters before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Court to Reconsider, Alter or

Amend Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). (Doc. #28).

Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of

the decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s application

for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits.

On August 25, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation

recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 25). No objections were filed to the

Report and Recommendation.

On September 18, 2009, this Court declined to adopt the Report and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge and entered an Order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff

and against Defendant. The Court concluded that the ALJ failed to provide specific and

Case 3:06-cv-02266-WQH-AJB Document 33 Filed 11/10/08 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

legitimate reasons for rejecting the assessment of physical limitations by Plaintiff’s treating

physician and improperly weighed the medical evidence. The Clerk of Court entered

Judgment accordingly. (Doc. # 27).

Defendant moves to alter or amend the Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that 1) the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge should have become final on its own terms because both parties impliedly

consented to voluntarily try the case on the merits before the Magistrate Judge, and 2) this

Court made a key error confusing the assessment of physical limitations with clinical findings.

“It is appropriate for a court to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) if (1) the

district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed

clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening

change in controlling law.” Duarte v. Bardales, 526 F.3d 563, 567 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotation

and citation omitted). 

In this case, the Magistrate Judge filed “his proposed findings and recommendations”

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), “[a] judge of the court

may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendation made by

the magistrate judge.” Jurisdiction to determine summary judgment and to enter judgment in

this case remained with the district judge. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties may

expressly consent to the conduct of all proceedings by the Magistrate Judge. There was no

express or implied consent by any party in the record of this case. 

Defendant further contends that this Court made a key error in analysis based upon

confusing the assessment of physical limitations with clinical findings. This Court has

reviewed the record and will adhere to its conclusion that the “detailed findings” of Dr. Close

do not provide a specific and legitimate reason supported by substantial evidence in the record

for rejecting the physical assessments of Plaintiff’s treating physician under the facts of this

case. (AR16). 

After reviewing the record, this Court concludes that there are no grounds to alter or

amend the judgment in this case. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion

Case 3:06-cv-02266-WQH-AJB Document 33 Filed 11/10/08 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

for Court to Reconsider, Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) (#28) is DENIED.

DATED: November 10, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02266-WQH-AJB Document 33 Filed 11/10/08 Page 3 of 3