Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00007/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00007-2/pdf.json

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

---

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 - 07cv0007WQH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA MATHEWS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv0007WQH (LSP)

ORDER

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #

24) filed on April 7, 2008. 

On August 31, 2004, Plaintiff Patricia Marie Mathews applied for disability insurance

benefits and supplemental security benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.

The Commissioner denied the application initially and upon reconsideration. Plaintiff

requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On June 30, 2006, the ALJ

issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not under a disability as defined by the Social

Security Act. The Appeals Council declined review. 

On January 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case seeking judicial review

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.

On April 7, 2008, Magistrate Judge Papas issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that this court grant the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 21),

Case 3:07-cv-00007-WQH-LSP Document 25 Filed 05/23/08 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 - 07cv0007WQH

deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 22), and remand for further

proceedings. The Magistrate Judge ordered that any party file written objections to the Report

and Recommendation no later than May 5, 2008. No party has filed an objection to the Report

and Recommendation.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a

Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the

[district] 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); see Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the

Report and Recommendation de novo. 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). 

CONCLUSION

This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court

concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the ALJ did not provide specific,

legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinions of three treating physicians and that substantial

evidence does not exist to support the findings of the ALJ. The Report and Recommendation

filed on April 7, 2008 (Doc. # 24) is adopted by this Court in its entirety.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #

21) is granted and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 22) is denied. This

action is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this order. 

DATED: May 23, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00007-WQH-LSP Document 25 Filed 05/23/08 Page 2 of 2