Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01035/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01035-1/pdf.json

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

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

FILED 

AUG 2 6 2019 

CLERK US DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA i 

BY DEPUTI.I 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LANCE HERMIZ, 

v. 

NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Plaintiff, 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 3:18-cv-01035-BEN-KSC 

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; and 

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff Lance Hermiz filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social 

19 Security Commissioner's denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and 

20 supplemental security income benefits. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, 

21 and Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to 

22 Plaintiffs motion. 

23 On August 9, 2019, the Honorable Karen S. Crawford issued a thoughtful and 

24 thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiffs 

25 motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant's cross-motion for summary 

26 judgment. Magistrate Judge Crawford found that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") 

27 provided specific reasons for his conclusion of Plaintiffs non-disability and that the 

28 record supports the ALJ's findings. With respect to Plaintiffs credibility and claims of 

3: 18-cv-01035-BEN-KSC 

Case 3:18-cv-01035-BEN-KSC Document 22 Filed 08/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1 greater disability, Judge Crawford found that the ALJ specifically identified which 

2 portions of Plaintiffs testimony were not credible and provided clear and convincing 

3 reasons for discounting that testimony. Judge Crawford explained that the ALJ properly 

4 evaluated, among other things, Plaintiffs participation in daily activities, his conservative 

5 treatment for the severe symptoms alleged, and the inconsistency between the objective 

6 evidence and the severe symptoms alleged. Objections to the Report and 

7 Recommendation were due August 19, 2019. Neither party has filed any objections. 

8 A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a 

9 magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 

10 § 636(b)(l). "[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 

11 recommendation] that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

12 However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 

13 judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." 

14 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane); see also 

15 Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor 

16 the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 

17 that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

18 The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 

19 Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 21). Plaintiffs motion 

20 for summary judgment is DENIED. (Docket No. 13). Defendant's cross-motion for 

21 summary judgment is GRANTED. (Docket No. 16). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED 

22 that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. The Clerk 

23 shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate the case. 

24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

25 

26 Dated: August Jfz., 2019 

27 

28 

2 

3: 18-cv-01035-BEN-KSC 

Case 3:18-cv-01035-BEN-KSC Document 22 Filed 08/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2