Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02487/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02487-2/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 (DIWC)

---

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

06cv2487 BEN(JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVA M. TUDINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-CV-2487-BEN (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

IN PART PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Docket Nos. 12, 16, 21]

Plaintiff Eva M. Tudino seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny

Tudino disability benefits and supplemental security income. Cross motions have been filed. 

The Honorable Jan M. Adler has issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”),

recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED in part and

GRANTED in part, and that Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment be DENIED in

part and GRANTED in part. 

Specifically, Judge Adler found that two of the ALJ’s six findings were insufficient to

discredit Plaintiff’s objective complaints, but that the ALJ otherwise articulated clear and

convincing reasons for his findings. Additionally, Judge Adler found that the ALJ erred by not

inquiring into whether the Vocational Expert’s testimony conflicted with the Dictionary of the

Occupational Titles. Furthermore, the Report concluded that the ALJ did not err in discounting

Case 3:06-cv-02487-BEN-JMA Document 22 Filed 09/05/08 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 06cv2487 BEN(JMA)

Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Objections to the Report were due on or before August 25,

2008. To date, no objections have been filed. 

The Court’s role in reviewing the Report is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this

statute, the 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].” Id.; see also U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“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. Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo,

findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). 

Notwithstanding, the Court has made a de novo review of the Report and agrees with

Judge Adler’s reasoning and conclusions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Thus, Judge Adler’s Report

is ADOPTED in full. For the reasons stated in the Report, Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part, and Defendant’s cross-motion for

summary judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The case is remanded for

further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 5, 2008

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02487-BEN-JMA Document 22 Filed 09/05/08 Page 2 of 2