Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01837/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01837-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision (regarding payment of benefits)

---

1

2 F» FD

3

JUN 3 0 2017

4

CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DiSTRiCT OF CALIFORNIA

DEPUTY

5

[BY

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 EUGENE MEIER, Case No.: 3:16-cv-01837-BEN-PCL

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER:

13 v.

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

14

15

Defendant. (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; and

16

17

18 (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

19

20

21

PlaintiffEugene Meier filed this action seeking judicial review ofthe Social

Security Commissioner’s1 denial ofhis application for disability insurance benefits.

22

23

24

25

26 i When Plaintiffinitiated this action, Carolyn W. Colvin was serving as the Acting

Commissioner ofthe Social Security Administration. Nancy A. Berryhill is now serving

as the Acting Commissioner. Pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 25(d),

Berryhill is automatically substituted as a party.

27

28

l

3:16-cv-01837-BEN-PCL

Case 3:16-cv-01837-BEN-PCL Document 19 Filed 06/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
/• V

Plaintifffiled a motion for summary judgment, and Defendant filed a cross-motion for

summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiffs motion.

On June 9, 2017, Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis issued a thoughtful and

thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant Defendant’s

motion and deny Plaintiffs motion. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were

due June 23, 2017. Neither party has filed any objections.

A district judge “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 district judge 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.

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

Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 18). Plaintiffs motion

for summary judgment is DENIED. (Docket No. 14). Defendant’s cross-motion for

summary judgment is GRANTED. (Docket No. 15).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 Dated: June , 2017

HonfRogep-T: Benitez

24 idmtecTStates District Judge

25

26

27

28

2

3:16-cv-01837-BEN-PCL

Case 3:16-cv-01837-BEN-PCL Document 19 Filed 06/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2