Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02063/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02063-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
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

- 1 - 06cv2063

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVELYN DELGADO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2063-L (NLS)

ORDER

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR REMAND OR

REVERSAL;

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT;

(4) AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF

THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY 

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security

Defendant.

Plaintiff filed the instant action for judicial review of denial of her application for

social security disability benefits. She subsequently filed a motion for reversal and/or

remand, requesting reversal of the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of her

application for benefits. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. 

The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes 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 she became disabled due to knee pain, including a tear in the outer

half of the meniscus, shoulder pain, including partial tear in a tendon, and degenerative disc

Case 3:06-cv-02063-L-NLS Document 21 Filed 08/22/07 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 - 06cv2063

disease in the cervical spine. Plaintiff claimed that the denial of benefits was not based on

substantial evidence, was arbitrary and that the ALJ should have further developed the

record. Upon review of the record and the parties’ motion papers, Judge Stormes

recommended denying Plaintiff's motion and granting the Commissioner's cross-motion. 

Specifically, she found the ALJ’s finding of no disability was based on substantial evidence

and the circumstances did not require the ALJ to further develop the record. 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 remand and/or reversal 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: August 22, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02063-L-NLS Document 21 Filed 08/22/07 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 - 06cv2063

COPY TO:

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-02063-L-NLS Document 21 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 3