Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02418/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02418-1/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARDO VILLA ARAUJO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv2418-WQH

(JMA)

vs. ORDER

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 14) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler, recommending

that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 11), and grant

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 12).

I. Background

Plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) in

December of 2011. (ECF No. 14 at 2). Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental

Security Income (“SSI”) in October of 2012. Id. Plaintiff’s application for DIB was

denied initially on April 12, 2012 and upon reconsideration on September 28, 2012. Id. 

On October 11, 2012, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing, and a hearing was

conducted in Tucson, Arizona on April 11, 2013 by Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)

Laura Speck Havens. Id. On May 8, 2013 The ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not

disabled. Id.

Plaintiff requested a review of the ALJ’s decision. Id. On August 8, 2013,

- 1 - 13cv2418-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 15 Filed 01/07/15 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

Plaintiff’s request for review was denied by the Appeals Council for the Social Security

Administration (“SSA”). Id. 

On October 8, 2013, Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

405(g). (ECF No. 1). On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary

judgment for reversal and/or remand contending that the ALJ erred in her determination

as to step five of the analysis by failing to consult a vocational expert to evaluate the

effects of his nonexertional impairments on his ability to perform the full range of light

work. (ECF No. 11). On May 27, 2014, Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary

judgment contending that the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial

evidence and was free from legal error. (ECF No. 12).

On November 14, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Report and

Recommendation, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment (ECF No. 11), and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment

(ECF No. 12). (ECF No. 14).

The Magistrate Judge determined that: “Only if the adjudicator does not have a

clear understanding of the effects of additional limitations on the job base are the

services of a vocational specialist or expert necessary. That was not the case here.” 

(ECF No. 14 at 12). The Magistrate Judge concluded that “the ALJ’s use of the grids

to make a finding of not disabled was appropriate under these circumstances.” Id.

To date, neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

II. Discussion

The duties of the district court in connection with a 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)(1). When a party objects to a report and recommendation, “[a] judge

of the [district] 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). 

When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the report and

recommendation de novo. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir.

- 2 - 13cv2418-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 15 Filed 01/07/15 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

2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003). A 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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the Court has

reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court concludes that the

Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ’s use of the grids to make a finding of

not disabled was appropriate under the circumstances. The Court adopts the Report and

Recommendation in its entirety.

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14)

is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 11)

is DENIED. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 12) is

GRANTED. 

DATED: January 7, 2015

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv2418-WQH-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 15 Filed 01/07/15 Page 3 of 3