Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00779/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00779-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
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 - 06cv779

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN R. MOONEY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv779-L (CAB)

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. He 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 Cathy Ann Bencivengo 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 due to chronic back pain secondary to a

herniated lumbar disc with nerve root compression. Plaintiff claimed that he did not

Case 3:06-cv-00779-L-CAB Document 14 Filed 09/21/07 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 - 06cv779

receive a fair hearing and that the ALJ did not properly evaluate medical evidence. Upon

review of the record and the parties’ motion papers, Judge Bencivengo 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 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 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: September 21, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO:

HON. CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-00779-L-CAB Document 14 Filed 09/21/07 Page 2 of 2