Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00115/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00115-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROL M. COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv115-WQH (NLS)

ORDER

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by the Honorable

Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes. (ECF No. 20).

I. Background

On September 21, 2007, Plaintiff filed an application for social security income. 

Plaintiff’s was claim denied initially and upon reconsideration. On November 25, 2008, a

hearing was held before an administrative law judge On September 18, 2009, the ALJ issued

a written decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. The ALJ’s decision became the final

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s

request for review. 

On January 20, 2011, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, initiated this action by filing a

Complaint for Review of Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. (ECF No.

1). 

On August 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 12). 

- 1 - 11cv115-WQH-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-00115-WQH-NLS Document 21 Filed 03/22/12 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

On October 14, 2011, Defendant filed a Cross- Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition

to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 17-18). On October 27, 2011,

Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Cross- Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No.

19). 

On February 14, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. 

(ECF No. 20). The Report and Recommendation recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment be denied and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment be

granted. The Report and Recommendation concludes:

IT IS ORDERED that no later than February 29, 2012 any party 

to this action may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on

all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and

Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be

filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than March 7, 2012. The

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order.

Id. at 16 (citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)).

The docket reflects that no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been

filed.

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). 

The district judge must “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). The district court

need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which neither

party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

A court “will disturb the denial of benefits only if the decision contains legal error or

is not supported by substantial evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.

2008) (quotation omitted). 

- 2 - 11cv115-WQH-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-00115-WQH-NLS Document 21 Filed 03/22/12 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

After review of the Report and Recommendation, the written opinion of the ALJ, the

administrative record, and the submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that the

Magistrate Judge correctly recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be

denied and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. 

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20) is

ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 12)

is DENIED. The Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant (ECF No. 17) is

GRANTED. 

DATED: March 22, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv115-WQH-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-00115-WQH-NLS Document 21 Filed 03/22/12 Page 3 of 3