Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02059/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02059-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (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 - 06cv2059

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY QUINTANIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2059-L (NLS)

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

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security

Defendant.

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 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). 

Initially Plaintiff alleged he became disabled as of April 1, 2004 due to a heart and

blood infection; however, at the hearing Plaintiff testified he was unable to work due to his

back pain. Plaintiff’s testimony about the severity of his back pain was not supported by

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

Case 3:06-cv-02059-L-NLS Document 21 Filed 08/02/07 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 - 06cv2059

Stormes recommended denying Plaintiff's motion and granting the Commissioner's crossmotion. 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 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: August 1, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO:

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-02059-L-NLS Document 21 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 2