Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02325/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02325-1/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

3:15-cv-02325-BEN-BGS

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

MELISSA CLAIRE GILLEON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-02325-BEN-BGS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

[Docket Nos. 16, 21, 27]

Plaintiff Melissa Claire Gilleon filed this action seeking judicial review of the 

Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance 

benefits. (Docket No. 1.) A briefing schedule was issued. (Docket Nos. 13, 15, 20.) 

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 16.) Defendant filed a 

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. (Docket 

Nos. 21-22.)

On August 5, 2016, Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a thoughtful and 

thorough Report and Recommendation recommending this Court grant in part and deny 

in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant in part and deny in part 

Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 27.) The Report and 

Recommendation recommended a limited remand for the Administrative Law Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-02325-BEN-BGS Document 28 Filed 08/29/16 Page 1 of 2
2

3:15-cv-02325-BEN-BGS

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

(“ALJ”) to conduct further factfinding on a recent decision by the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (“VA”) and determine whether the VA’s decision was based on new 

evidence not previously before the ALJ and whether this information changes the 

disability determination. (Id.) 

Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due August 12, 2016. 

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 of the [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 district judge must review the magistrate 

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

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

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 

the statute requires a district judge 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. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant’s Cross-Motion 

for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The matter 

is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with 

this Order and the Report and Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02325-BEN-BGS Document 28 Filed 08/29/16 Page 2 of 2