Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00267/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00267-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAULA MICHELLE FRENCH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv0267-WQH (WVG)

ORDER

vs.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge: 

The matter before the Court is the review of the report and recommendation (ECF

No. 17) issued by United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo, recommending that

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 12) be denied and Defendant’s

cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) be granted.

BACKGROUND

 On March 25, 2010, Plaintiff Paula French filed an application for supplemental

security income under Title XVI and XIX of the Social Security Act (“Act”). (ECF No.

10-5 at 2–7). Plaintiff’s claim was denied at the initial level and upon reconsideration. 

(ECF No. 10-3). Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an administrative law judge

(“ALJ”), which was held on March 4, 2011. (ECF No. 10-2 at 32–46). On September

22, 2011, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision, concluding that Plaintiff was not

disabled as defined under the Act. (ECF No. 10-2 at 15–31). On November 28, 2012,

the Appeals Council for the Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff’s request

for further review. (ECF No. 10-2 at 4–6).

- 1 - [13cv0267-WQH(WVG)]

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 18 Filed 01/02/14 Page 1 of 3
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

On February 1, 2013, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, commenced this action

seeking judicial review of Defendant’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF

No. 1). On July 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.

12). On August 12, 2013, Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. 

(ECF No. 13). On October 29, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued the report and

recommendation. (ECF No. 17). The report and recommendation recommends that

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied and Defendant’s cross-motion for

summary judgment be granted. The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ properly

rejected the treating physician’s opinions in concluding that Plaintiff was not disabled

under the Act. The Magistrate Judge also found that substantial evidence supported the

ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s testimony was not credible.

The report and recommendation states that any party may file written objections

with the Court no later than November 21, 2013 and that “failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the

Court’s order.” Id. at 47–48. The docket reflects that no objections to the report and

recommendation have been filed. 

REVIEW OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The duties of the district court in connection with the report and recommendation

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

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions

of a report and recommendation to which neither party objects. See 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). 

After review of the report and recommendation, the written opinion of the ALJ,

the administrative record, and the submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that

- 2 - [13cv0267-WQH(WVG)]

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 18 Filed 01/02/14 Page 2 of 3
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

the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial

evidence and the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the report and recommendation (ECF No.

17) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff

(ECF No. 12) is DENIED; and (3) the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by

Defendant (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

for Defendant and against Plaintiff. 

DATED: January 2, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - [13cv0267-WQH(WVG)]

Case 3:13-cv-00267-WQH-WVG Document 18 Filed 01/02/14 Page 3 of 3