Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00208/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00208-1/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

- 1 - 09cv208-WQH-JMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARLO CLEVELAND,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv208-WQH-JMA

ORDER

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #

16) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler, recommending that Plaintiff’s

Motion for Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 11) be denied and Defendant’s CrossMotion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 15) be granted.

BACKGROUND

On May 24, 2006, Plaintiff filed an application for supplemental security income

benefits. (Admin. R. at 10, Doc. # 9). Plaintiff’s claim was denied at the initial level and upon

reconsideration. Id. at 10. Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an administrative law

judge (“ALJ”), which was held on October 16, 2007. Id. On February 29, 2008, the ALJ

issued a written decision finding that Plaintiff has not been under a disability, as defined in the

Social Security Act, since the date Plaintiff’s application was filed. Id. at 20. On December

5, 2008, the Appeals Council for the Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff’s request

for further review. Id. at 1. 

Case 3:09-cv-00208-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 08/26/10 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

- 2 - 09cv208-WQH-JMA

On February 4, 2009, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, commenced this action seeking

judicial review of Defendant’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On October 2, 2009,

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 11). On November 5, 2009,

Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 15).

On July 23, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (Doc.

# 16). The Report and Recommendation recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be denied and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. With

respect to Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ failed to give controlling weight to the opinion

of Dr. John Donnelly, Plaintiff’s treating physician, the Magistrate Judge concludes:

[T]he ALJ articulated specific and legitimate reasons based on substantial

evidence in the record for rejecting Dr. Donnelly’s opinions and adopting the

opinions of Dr. Goldberg instead. [The ALJ] set out a detailed thorough

summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stated her interpretation

thereof, and made findings, as required. The Court further finds the ALJ’s

decision that Plaintiff is not disabled is supported by substantial evidence,

including the treating notes of Dr. Donnelly, two examining psychiatrists (Dr.

Fijman and Dr. Rodriguez), and a non-examining medical adviser (Dr.

Goldberg). For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds the ALJ did not err

by giving reduced weight to Dr. Donnelly’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s work

limitations and in finding Plaintiff is not disabled.

Id. at 17 (citations omitted). The Report and Recommendation states:

Any party may file written objections [to the Report and Recommendation] with

the Court and serve a copy on all parties on or before August 9, 2010. ... Any

reply to the Objections shall be served and filed on or before August 20, 2010. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order.

Id. at 17-18 (citation omitted).

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

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

Case 3:09-cv-00208-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 08/26/10 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

- 3 - 09cv208-WQH-JMA

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, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

A court “will disturb the denial of benefits only if the decision contains legal error or

is not supported by substantial evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.

2008) (quotation omitted). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The evidence must be more than a

mere scintilla but not necessarily a preponderance.” Id. (quotations omitted). An ALJ “must

provide specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion of a treating physician. The

ALJ can meet this burden by setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and

conflicting clinical evidence, stating her interpretation thereof, and making findings.” Id. at

1041 (quotations omitted).

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 the

Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ articulated specific and legitimate reasons based

on substantial evidence in the record for rejecting Dr. Donnelly’s opinions. The Magistrate

Judge correctly found that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff is not

disabled.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 16) is

ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 11) is

DENIED; and (3) Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 15) is

GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff.

DATED: August 26, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00208-WQH-JMA Document 18 Filed 08/26/10 Page 3 of 3