Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01352/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01352-0/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

- 1 - 07cv1352

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA A. SHONK,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1352-LAB (POR)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

GRANTING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

[Dkt No. 9, 12]

vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Patricia A. Shonk ("Shonk"), proceeding with the assistance of counsel, seeks judicial

review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying her claim

for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381, et seq. She

filed a Motion For Reversal And/Or Remand, challenging as not supported by substantial evidence

and based on legal error the Commissioner's decision to adopt the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ")

February 22, 2005 decision finding her not disabled. Dkt No. 9. The Commissioner filed a CrossMotion for summary judgment, arguing the ALJ's decision should be affirmed. Dkt No. 12. Shonk

filed no opposition to the Commissioner's motion.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2) and FED.R.CIV.P. ("Rule") 72(b), this matter was referred

to Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). Judge Porter

recommends Shonk's Motion be denied and the Commissioner's Motion be granted. Dkt No. 16. She

set a filing deadline for Objections to the R&R of August 20, 2007. None were filed.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further

evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions" on a dispositive matter

prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes. Rule

Case 3:06-cv-01352-LAB-POR Document 17 Filed 09/04/07 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 - 07cv1352

72(b);see 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). A party objecting to the recommended disposition of the matter may

"serve and file specific objections to the proposed findings and recommendations," and "a party may

respond to another party's objections." Rule 72(b). "[T]he court shall make a de novo determination

of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection

is made." 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (when objections

are made, the court must make a de novo determination of the factual findings to which there are

objections). The court also reviews de novo the magistrate judge's conclusions of law. Gates v.

Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir. 1995). That statutory provision does not require the district court

to conduct some lesser review when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50

(1985); but seeRobbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007) (the magistrate's conclusions

of law are reviewed de novo, regardless of whether any party has filed objections thereto). "If neither

party contests the magistrate's proposed findings of fact, the court may assume their correctness and

decide the motion on the applicable law." Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979).

Neither party has contested the proposed findings of fact in this R&R. In the absence of

objections, the court assumes their correctness. Orand, 602 F.2d at 208; Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 676.

The court has reviewed de novo the legal standards the R&R applied to the recited facts in reaching

its conclusions of law. The court finds the analysis cogently demonstrates the ALJ's decision to deny

Shonk's disability claim was supported by substantial evidence, in consideration of the correct

disability standards claimants must satisfy at each of the regulatory steps in the review process.

For the forgoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R analysis and ACCEPTS the

recommended results. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Shonk's motion for remand or reversal is

DENIED, the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the decision

to deny benefits is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 4, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01352-LAB-POR Document 17 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 2