Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00908/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00908-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0402 Social Security Benefits

---

1

18-CV-908 JLS (WVG)

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

M. AIKEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-908 JLS (WVG)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION, 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, AND (3) GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 13)

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R,” ECF No. 13). Magistrate Judge Gallo recommends that the 

Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl. MSJ.,” ECF No. 9) and grant 

Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def. MSJ.,” ECF No. 10). Plaintiff 

did not oppose Defendant’s Motion and did not file any objections to the R&R. Having 

considered Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R, the Parties’ arguments, and the law, the Court

rules as follows.

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-00908-JLS-WVG Document 14 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-908 JLS (WVG)

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

BACKGROUND

Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R contains a complete and accurate recitation of the 

relevant factual and procedural histories underlying the instant motions. See R&R at 5–7. 

This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

court’s duties regarding a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court 

“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection 

is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also 

United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980). In the absence of a timely 

objection, however, “the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the 

face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory 

committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 510 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff contends the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) made two errors in its 

decision that require reversal or remand. Pl. MSJ at 14–18. First, Plaintiff argues that the 

“ALJ erred in posing an incomplete hypothetical to the [v]ocational [e]xpert . . . , thus 

invalidating the vocational expert[’]s testimony regarding Ms. Aiken’s ability to perform 

past relevant work.” Id. at 14. Although Magistrate Judge Gallo agreed with Plaintiff that 

the ALJ asked the vocational expert an incomplete hypothetical, R&R at 8–9, Magistrate 

Judge Gallo concluded that the error was harmless. Id. at 10. 

Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly weighed the opinion of Dr. Amy 

Kanner because “Dr. Kanner was not privy to any of Ms. Aiken’s medical records, and 

findings from the evaluation conflicted with the recorded evidence.” Pl. MSJ at 16. After 

reviewing the record, Magistrate Judge Gallo concluded that the ALJ did not err because 

“the ALJ appropriately evaluated the record as a whole and properly weighted Dr. Kanner’s 

findings and opinion, which w[ere] supported by Plaintiff’s medical history.” R&R at 11. 

Case 3:18-cv-00908-JLS-WVG Document 14 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-908 JLS (WVG)

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

Because Petitioner failed timely to object to Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R, the 

Court reviews the R&R for clear error. The Court finds that the R&R is well reasoned and 

contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge 

Gallo’s R&R (ECF No. 13) and GRANTS Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 10).

CONCLUSION

 For the reasons stated above, the Court (1) ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 13) in its 

entirety, (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and (3) GRANTS

Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk of the Court SHALL 

ENTER judgment accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00908-JLS-WVG Document 14 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3