Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02946/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02946-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

I

"71

FILED

# FEB 22 PM 3:19

1

2

3

4

BSMrv <>v 5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 RAYMOND J. DOUVILLE, Case No.: 3:15-cv-02946-BEN-JLB

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER:

13 v.

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

14

15

Defendant. (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT;

16

17

18 (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

19

20

21 [Docket Nos. 18,20,22]

22 PlaintiffRaymond J. Douville filed this action seeking judicial review ofthe Social

Security Commissioner’s denial ofhis application for disability insurance benefits.

(Docket No. 1.) Plaintifffiled a motion for summary judgment (docket no. 18), and

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

motion. (Docket No. 20.)

23

24

25

26

27

l 28

3:15-cv-02946-BEN-JLB

Case 3:15-cv-02946-BEN-JLB Document 23 Filed 02/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
i

V/

On January 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt issued a thoughtful and

thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiffs

motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary

judgment. (Docket No. 22.) Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment contends that the

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) committed reversible error for rejecting a portion of

the medical opinion ofDr. Phong T. Dao, D.O., and failing to adequately explain the

reason for the rejection. Magistrate Judge Burkhardt found that the ALJ did not err in

rejecting the disputed portion ofDr. Dao’s opinion because it was contradictory to some

ofPlaintiffs medical records and the opinions oftwo other physicians (one treating, one

non-treating). Magistrate Judge Burkhardt also found the ALJ sufficiently explained his

reasons for rejecting Dr. Dao’s opinion. See Howard ex. Rel. Wolffv. Barnhart, 341 F.3d

1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1998) (“[I]n

interpreting the evidence and developing the record, the ALJ does not need to discuss

‘every piece of evidence.’ ”).

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by January 30, 2017.

(Docket No. 22.) Neither party has filed any objections. For the reasons that follow, the

Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

A districtjudge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a

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

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he districtjudge must determine de novo any part ofthe [report and

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

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

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo ifobjection is made, but not otherwise.”

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

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

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

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

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

2 28

3:15-cv-02946-BEN-JLB

Case 3:15-cv-02946-BEN-JLB Document 23 Filed 02/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
I

The Court need not conduct de novo review given the absence of objections.

However, the Court has conducted a de novo review and fully ADOPTS the Report and

Recommendation. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendant’s

cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Dated: February <0^-2017 7

8

rROGER T. BBNITEZ /

9

nited States District Court Judge

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3 28

3:15-cv-02946-BEN-JLB

Case 3:15-cv-02946-BEN-JLB Document 23 Filed 02/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3