Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00831/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00831-1/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 (SSID)

---

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

 Citations are to the Administrative Record and use the internal pagination which

appears in the upper right hand corner of each page.

- 1 - 08cv831 WQH (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY E. BRAY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv831 WQH (WVG)

ORDER

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff

Larry E. Bray (Doc. # 15), the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment for Summary Judgment

filed by Defendant Michael J. Astrue (Doc. # 21), and the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 23).

BACKGROUND

On July 30, 2005, Plaintiff applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits

alleging he has been disabled since June 20, 2004. (AR, Doc. # 10 at 99-103).1

 On October

26, 2006, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing in the case. Id. at 656-703.

On November 6, 2006, the ALJ issued a written opinion finding Plaintiff was not disabled

because his residual functional capacity allowed him to perform sedentary work. Id. at 17-23.

 On March 14, 2008, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. Id. at 5-8. On

Case 3:08-cv-00831-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 08/30/10 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 - 08cv831 WQH (WVG)

May 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Judicial Review and Remedy on an Administrative

Decision under the Social Security Act. (Doc. # 1). On January 5, 2009, this Court issued

an Order to Show Cause for failure to prosecute because there had been no activity in the case

since July 31, 2009. (Doc. # 3). On February 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed a response. (Doc. # 7).

On March 18, 2009, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to file a motion for summary

judgment on or before May 1, 2009. (Doc. # 11). Plaintiff failed to file a motion by the

deadline. On January 27, 2010, this Court issued a second order to show cause as to why the

case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. # 13). On February 26, 2010,

Plaintiff’s attorney filed a response to the order to show cause stating he had failed to note the

deadline to file a motion for summary judgment on his calendar. (Doc. # 14). Plaintiff’s

counsel further stated he had contacted counsel for Defendant, who does not oppose allowing

a motion for summary judgment to be filed late. Id. On February 26, 2010 Plaintiff also filed

a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 15). On March 2, 2010, the Court issued an order

which concluded that Plaintiff had shown cause why his case should not be dismissed. (Doc.

# 16) On April 26, 2010, Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 21).

On July 29, 2010 the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

which recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion and grant Defendant’s motion.

(Doc. # 23 at 14-15). The R&R concludes that the ALJ did not err in failing to mention

Plaintiff’s wife’s testimony in the opinion and that the ALJ properly rejected Plaintiff’s wife’s

earlier statements because they were inconsistent with the medical evidence. Id. The R&R

set a deadline of August 20, 2010 to file any objections. Neither party objected to the R&R.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with the 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

Case 3:08-cv-00831-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 08/30/10 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 - 08cv831 WQH (WVG)

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). 

The ALJ’s decision denying benefits “will be disturbed only if that decision is not

supported by substantial evidence or it is based upon legal error.” Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d

599, 601 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla

but less than a preponderance.” Id. (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed the R&R and the administrative record. The Court concludes

that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the ALJ did not err in failing to mention

Plaintiff’s wife’s testimony in the opinion and that the ALJ properly rejected Plaintiff’s wife’s

earlier statements because they were inconsistent with the medical evidence. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. # 23) is adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 15)

is DENIED. Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment for Summary Judgment (Doc.

# 21) is GRANTED.

DATED: August 30, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00831-WQH-WVG Document 24 Filed 08/30/10 Page 3 of 3