Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00730/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00730-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Moreno Garcia,

Plaintiff,

v.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of the Social

Security Administration, 

Defendant, _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 12-730 TUC DCB(JR)

O R D E R

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau, on October 22, 2012,

pursuant to the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, District of Arizona (Local

Rules), Rule (Civil) 72.1(a). She issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), which as filed

on July 25, 2013. (Doc. 26: R&R). She recommends affirming the denial of disability benefits

by an administrative law judge on July 22, 2011. There being no objection to the R&R, the

Court adopts it and for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, affirms the decision of the

Social Security Commissioner and denies benefits. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R&R by a Magistrate Judge, are set

forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district

court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When the parties object

to a Report and Recommendation (R&R), “‘[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.’” Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). When no objections are filed, the

district court does not need to review the R&R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000

Case 4:12-cv-00730-DCB-JR Document 27 Filed 12/05/13 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 -

n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en

banc).

The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed they had 14 days to file written

objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), see also, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 72 (party objecting

to the recommended disposition has fourteen (14) days to file specific, written objections). To

date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge considered the Plaintiff’s work history as a bookkeeper and

counter clerk at a convenience store, his age and education, and his long medical history for

epilepsy. The Magistrate Judge found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) provided

legitimate reasons for discounting the Plaintiff’s treating physician’s opinion of disability

because there were scant supporting medical records and based on the conflicting opinion of an

examining physician. The ALJ discredited the Plaintiff’s testimony of disability because he

testified that he was able to perform numerous activities on a regular basis. The ALJ found at

step five of the disability assessment that the Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (RFC)

to perform other work that exists in substantial numbers in the economy. The Magistrate Judge

found the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning there was such

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court makes a de novo determination as to those

portions of the R&R to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings and recommendations to which objection is made.") To the extent that no objection

has been made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185,

1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see

also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist.

Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need only

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

recommendation).

Case 4:12-cv-00730-DCB-JR Document 27 Filed 12/05/13 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 -

While there are no objections and review has, therefore, been waived, the Court

nevertheless reviews at a minimum, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law.

Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,

455 (9th Cir. 1998) (conclusions of law by a magistrate judge reviewed de novo); Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object standing alone will not ordinarily

waive question of law, but is a factor in considering the propriety of finding waiver)). The

Court finds the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned, without any clear error in law or fact.

See United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) (United States v. Remsing,

874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as providing for district

court to reconsider matters delegated to magistrate judge when there is clear error or

recommendation is contrary to law). The Court accepts and adopts the R&R as the opinion of

the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court

affirms the decision of the Social Security Commissioner to deny Plaintiff disability benefits.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 26) is adopted as the

opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Social Security Commissioner

is AFFIRMED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 4th day of December, 2013.

Case 4:12-cv-00730-DCB-JR Document 27 Filed 12/05/13 Page 3 of 3