Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01316/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01316-1/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)

---

1

3:17-cv-01316-BEN-AGS

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

MICHAEL SEAN BROZOVIC,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

1

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01316-BEN-AGS

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION;

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; AND

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

[Docket Nos. 16, 17, 23]

Plaintiff Michael Sean Brozovic filed this action seeking judicial review of the 

Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. 

(Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 16), and 

 

1 Acting Commissioner of Social Security Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for former 

Acting Commissioner Carolyn C. Colvin pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.

Case 3:16-cv-01316-BEN-AGS Document 24 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:17-cv-01316-BEN-AGS

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

Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiff’s 

motion. (Docket Nos. 17, 18.) Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant’s crossmotion.

On July 26, 2017, Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler issued a thoughtful and 

thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s 

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

judgment. (Docket No. 23.) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment contends that the 

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) committed reversible error in rejecting his symptom 

testimony and failing to adequately explain the reason for the rejection. Magistrate Judge 

Schopler found that that the ALJ sufficiently explained why Plaintiff’s testimony was not 

credible. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Schopler found that, of the six reasons the ALJ 

relied on to support the findings on Plaintiff’s credibility, only one is invalid, and the 

remaining five reasons are specific, clear, convincing, and supported by substantial 

evidence in the record. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 

(9th Cir. 2008) (“So long as there remains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s 

conclusions on credibility and the error does not negate the validity of the ALJ’s ultimate 

credibility conclusion, such is deemed harmless and does not warrant reversal.”). 

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by August 9, 2017. 

(Docket No. 23.) Neither party has filed any objections. For the reasons that follow, the 

Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

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 of the [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 if objection 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 

Case 3:16-cv-01316-BEN-AGS Document 24 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:17-cv-01316-BEN-AGS

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

Nevertheless, the Court has considered the parties’ arguments and fully ADOPTS the 

Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01316-BEN-AGS Document 24 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3