Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00992/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00992-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

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

PAMELA JO GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv992-WQH-BLM

ORDER

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18), issued

by United States Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major, which recommends that the Motion for

Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 12) be granted and the Cross-Motion for

Summary Judgment filed by Defendant (ECF No. 16) be denied.

BACKGROUND

On November 21, 2008, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits,

alleging disability beginning on January 25, 2008. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 14; ECF

No. 8-2 at 15). Plaintiff’s claim was denied at the initial level and upon reconsideration. Id. 

On June 18, 2010, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). Id. On July

9, 2010, the ALJ issued a written decision finding that Plaintiff had severe impairments of

subjective memory impairment and osteoporosis, but Plaintiff was not disabled, as defined in

the Social Security Act, from January 25, 2008 through the date of the ALJ’s decision. (AR

14-23; ECF No. 8-2 at 15-24). On February 24, 2012, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s

- 1 - 12cv992-WQH-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-00992-WQH-BLM Document 19 Filed 04/26/13 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

request for review and the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of

the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”). (AR 1; ECF No. 8-2 at 2).

On April 23, 2012, Plaintiff initiated this action against the Commissioner, pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 1). On August 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment, asking the Court to reverse the Commissioner’s final decision and to remand the

case for an award of benefits or further proceedings. (ECF No. 12). On April 20, 2012,

Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 16).

On March 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation

recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, deny

Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, reverse the decision of the Commissioner

and remand for calculation of benefits. (ECF No. 18). The Magistrate Judge stated that “the

ALJ’s reasons for rejecting the functional capacity assessment of Plaintiff’s treating physician

and Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony are not based on substantial evidence and are

legally insufficient.” Id. at 28. The Magistrate Judge stated that “there are no outstanding

issues that must be resolved before a determination of disability can be made, and it is clear

from the record that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled were Plaintiff’s

evidence credited.” Id. (citations omitted). The Report and Recommendation concludes:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this Report and

Recommendation must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later

than April 3, 2013.... The parties are advised 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. (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991)).

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 a 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). 

The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to

- 2 - 12cv992-WQH-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-00992-WQH-BLM Document 19 Filed 04/26/13 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

which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 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); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act]

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

themselves accept as correct.”) (en banc).

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the administrative record,

and the submissions of the parties. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly

recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, Defendant’s CrossMotion for Summary Judgment be denied, the Commissioner’s final decision be reversed and

this case be remanded for calculation of benefits.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18)

is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) is

GRANTED; and (3) Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) is

DENIED. The Court REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDS this case

to the Social Security Administration for calculation of benefits.

DATED: April 26, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv992-WQH-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-00992-WQH-BLM Document 19 Filed 04/26/13 Page 3 of 3