Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00181/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00181-0/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 (DIWC)

---

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

05cv0181

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN CSASZI,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv0181-L(JMA)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT;

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT;

(4) AFFIRMING THE DECISION

OF THE COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY TO DENY

BENEFITS

Plaintiff filed the instant action for judicial review of denial of his application for social

security disability benefits. He subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting

reversal of the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") finding of no disability. The Commissioner

filed a cross-motion. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for a

report and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule

72.1(c)(1)(c). 

Plaintiff alleged he became disabled while working for Mc Tools due to repeatedly

climbing up and down his work truck , and lifting, loading and unloading work tools. He

complained of headaches, as well as shoulder, neck and back pain, which was exacerbated by his

Case 3:05-cv-00181-L-JMA Document 19 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 2
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 05cv0181

employer’s threats and abusive actions. Plaintiff also complained of job stress and depression.

Upon review of the record and the parties’ motion papers, Judge Adler recommended denying

Plaintiff's motion and granting the Commissioner's cross-motion. Specifically, he found the

ALJ's finding of no disability was based on substantial evidence and was free of legal error. 

Neither Plaintiff nor the Commissioner filed objections to the report and recommendation. 

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision" on a

dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties

for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The court shall make a de

novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is

made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Section 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the

district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The

"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), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003)

(emphasis in original). 

Accordingly, in the absence of any objections, the report and recommendation is

ADOPTED. It is hereby further ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

2. The Commissioner's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 

3. The Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2006

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. JAN M. ADLER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-00181-L-JMA Document 19 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2