Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02418/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02418-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
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

BERNARDO VILLA ARAUJO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 13-CV-2418-WQH

(JMA)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC.

NO. 11] AND DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC.

NO. 12]

Plaintiff Bernardo Villa Araujo (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of

Defendant Social Security Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin’s

(“Defendant”) determination that he is not entitled to disability insurance

benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”). The parties

have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth

below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

be DENIED and that Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment be

GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a resident of Brawley, California, was born in 1959. (Admin.

13cv2418

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 13
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

R. at 25, 98.) He completed twelfth grade and previously worked as a

driver in the agricultural field and a driver/mechanic in the cattle business. 

(Id. at 134.) In applications for DIB and SSI filed in December 2011 and

October 2012, respectively, Plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of

February 11, 2011 due to problems with his left leg and hands. (Id. at 98-

101, 108-17, 129-38.) Plaintiff’s application for DIB was denied initially on

April 12, 2012 and upon reconsideration on September 28, 2012. (Id. at

62-66.) On October 11, 2012, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing. 

(Id. at 67-68.) A hearing was conducted in Tucson, Arizona on April 11,

2013 by Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Laura Speck Havens, who

determined on May 8, 2013 that Plaintiff was not disabled. (Id. at 14-19.) 

Plaintiff requested a review of the ALJ’s decision; the Appeals Council for

the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied Plaintiff’s request for

review on August 8, 2013. (Id. at 1-3.) Plaintiff then commenced this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

II. MEDICAL EVIDENCE

A. Steven Tradonsky, M.D. - Worker’s Compensation Doctor

Dr. Steven Tradonsky conducted an orthopaedic reevaluation of

Plaintiff on May 5, 2011. (Id. at 190-99.) Dr. Tradonsky noted in his report

that he had treated Plaintiff between December 2007 and November 2009

for an injury Plaintiff sustained at work on November 19, 2007 when he

slipped while refueling a truck and twisted his left knee. (Id. at 190.) At

that time, Plaintiff was diagnosed with multi-ligament injuries in the knee

and a peroneal nerve palsy with foot drop. (Id.)

1

 Plaintiff underwent

1

Foot drop is a general term for difficulty lifting the front part of the foot. A person with foot drop may drag the front of their foot on the ground when they

walk. See

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/foot-drop/basics/definition/con-20

2 13cv2418

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/14/14 Page 2 of 13
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

multiple reconstructive surgeries and was released to his work duties

without restrictions in or around August 2009. (Id.) Plaintiff performed his

work duties until February 2011 when he was laid off. (Id.) 

Plaintiff presented to Dr. Tradonsky on May 5, 2011 with complaints

of increasing symptoms in his leg. (Id.) He reported that he had mild

ongoing pain in his knee on a daily basis, as well as intermittent sharp pain. 

(Id. at 191.) His primary difficulty was with walking, as he continued to

have a partial foot drop on his left side if he walked more than a quarter of

a mile. (Id.) As a result, he had fallen on multiple occasions. (Id.) He also

complained of occasional pain radiating up toward his hip and into his low

back because of his altered gait secondary to his foot drop. (Id.)

Dr. Tradonsky determined that Plaintiff’s symptoms were related to

the work injury he sustained on November 19, 2007, and opined that

Plaintiff could perform his regular work duties without restrictions. (Id. at

192.) Dr. Tradonsky recommended that Plaintiff be seen by an orthotist for

evaluation for a spring-loaded foot drop splint to assist him with his

abnormal gait. (Id. at 193.) 

B. Mervat G. Kelada, M.D. - Examining Physician

Plaintiff received a general medical examination from Dr. Mervat

Kelada on July 11, 2011. (Id. at 174-78.) Dr. Kelada noted that Plaintiff

walked with a brace and a mild limp, and had been unemployed since

February 2011, when he was laid off due to the economy. (Id. at 174-75.) 

She also noted that Plaintiff had been told he had hypertension years ago, 

but had not been taking any medication for his blood pressure. (Id.) Dr.

Kelada opined that Plaintiff had a mild disability, but with his driver’s license

could still work as a driver. (Id. at 175.) 

//

032918 (as visited Nov. 5, 2014).

3 13cv2418

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/14/14 Page 3 of 13
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

C. Thomas A. Schweller, M.D. - Examining Physician

Plaintiff underwent a neurological consultation with Dr. Thomas

Schweller on March 28, 2012 at the request of the Department of Social

Services. (Id. at 179-81.) Plaintiff recounted the history of his left knee

injury and foot drop, and also advised that he began to have numbness in

his hands in 2007 but had never been evaluated for it. (Id. at 179.) He had

been wearing self-prescribed braces on his wrists during his sleep for the

past two years. (Id.) Dr. Schweller’s diagnoses consisted of status post

left peroneal nerve injury at the knee, bilateral median neuropathy at the

wrists, and uncontrolled and untreated hypertension. (Id. at 181.) With

respect to Plaintiff’s functional capacity, Dr. Schweller opined that Plaintiff

could sit, stand, and walk for six hours out of an eight-hour workday; could

lift twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently, with occasional

limits in bending, stooping, and squatting; had no kneeling or crawling

limitations; and did not require an assistive device for ambulation, but

should avoid unprotected heights and exposure to moving machinery. He

further opined that Plaintiff’s sensory neuropathy from carpal tunnel in both

hands placed no limits on his gross handling, reaching, or push/pull

capabilities, but he would have occasional limits in fingering of both hands. 

(Id.)

D. Mary Kay Klockmann, N.P. - Treating Nurse Practitioner

Plaintiff had an office visit with nurse practitioner Mary Kay

Klockmann on September 11, 2012. (Id. at 183-88.) He reported that his

carpal tunnel symptoms began a year prior and rated 7 on a pain scale of

10. (Id. at 183.) He also rated his left knee symptoms as 7 on a scale of

10. (Id.) His medications included Tramadol (pain reliever), Naproxen

(nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine (NSAID)), and Lisinopril (for high

blood pressure). (Id.) On examination, Plaintiff’s left knee showed

4 13cv2418

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/14/14 Page 4 of 13
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

tenderness and a mildly reduced range of motion. (Id. at 185.) Plaintiff

stated that his carpal tunnel had never been treated, that he was not able

to hold things, and that he dropped items easily. (Id.) Nurse Klockmann

started Plaintiff on a new prescription for his high blood pressure and

advised him to follow up in 1-2 weeks. (Id.) 

E. Safwan Alboiny, M.D. - Treating Physician

Plaintiff presented to Dr. Safwan Alboiny, neurologist, on January 31,

2013 with complaints of carpal tunnel. (Id. at 200-01.) Plaintiff stated that

his symptoms of pain, numbness, and weakness started a few years prior. 

(Id. at 200.) Dr. Alboiny confirmed the diagnosis of carpal tunnel and,

noting that Plaintiff did not experience pain on a daily basis, recommended

an EMG and nerve conduction studies of the upper extremities, an MRI of

the cervical spine, trigger point injections for carpal tunnel as needed,

continued use of wrist splints, and referral to physical and occupational

therapy twice per week for a month. (Id. at 201.) 

III. THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

The ALJ conducted an administrative hearing on April 11, 2013. (Id.

at 20.) Plaintiff, who was not represented by counsel at the hearing,

testified that as of February 11, 2011, the date he alleged he became

disabled, his carpal tunnel and nerves in his left leg worsened. (Id. at 26.) 

He acknowledged, however, that he had received unemployment benefits

in 2012, and thus had certified to the State of California that he was able to

work at that time. (Id.) During that period of time, he applied for truck

driver and mechanic jobs monthly through Cal Jobs. (Id.) He testified that

he probably could have worked as a truck driver, but not as a mechanic at

that time. (Id.) By December 2012, “it just got real bad” and he was no

longer able to work at all, even as a truck driver. (Id. at 26-27.) 

5 13cv2418

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/14/14 Page 5 of 13
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

Plaintiff testified he sometimes needs help putting his clothes on and

scrubbing his back, and is not able to do any household chores. (Id. at 27-

28.) He received his last worker’s compensation check in 2011. (Id. at 29.) 

He does not have any hobbies, and watches TV for four to five hours per

day. (Id.) He has a driver’s license, but the longest drive he can make is to

Wal-Mart, about a mile away. (Id.) He has problems sleeping. (Id.) 

Plaintiff testified that his primary doctor is Dr. Alboiny, whom he generally

sees about once per month. (Id. at 30.) He takes high blood pressure

medication, aspirin, cholesterol pills, and two painkillers, Tramadol and

Naproxen. (Id.)

He stated that he can only walk or stand for five minutes at a time

because of the nerve in his left leg. (Id. at 31.) He can sit for an hour

before needing to get up. (Id.) He does not do any lifting. (Id.) He

experiences pain in the back of his left leg up his spine to his back and

neck, and in both hands, with the pain being worse on the left because he

is left-handed. (Id.) He has pain around the wrist area, and is not able to

pick things up with his fingers without dropping them. (Id. at 31-32.) He

can pick up a Styrofoam cup, but not a coffee cup or a book. (Id. at 32.) 

He is not able to move his fingers on a keyboard. (Id.) He rated his pain

as an 8 or 9 on a scale of 10; it reduces to 5 when he takes medication. 

(Id.) He had received a “shock treatment” from Dr. Alboiny a few weeks

before, and was going to try “needles” as used by “the Chinese” in his

knee. (Id. at 33-34.) 

IV. THE ALJ DECISION

After considering the record, ALJ Havens made the following

findings:

. . . .

6 13cv2418

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/14/14 Page 6 of 13
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. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since February 11, 2011, the alleged onset date [citations

omitted].

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: carpal tunnel syndrome, bilateral; high blood pressure; and residuals

of a left leg injury [citations omitted].

4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination thereof that meets or medically equals the

severity of one of the listed impairments in [the Social

Security regulations].

. . . .

5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to

perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R 404.1567(b) and

416.967(b) except as limited by the ability to sit, stand, or walk

for about six hours each in an 8-hour workday; frequently able

to climb ramps/stairs, balance, kneel, crouch, and crawl;

occasionally able to stoop or climb ladders, ropes, and

scaffolding; no limitations in feeling and gross manipulation

activities; occasionally able to perform fingering (fine

manipulation) activities, bilaterally; and the need to avoid

concentrated exposure to hazards.

. . . . 

6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work [citations omitted].

. . . .

10. Considering his age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant

numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform

[citations omitted]. 

11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from February 11, 2011, through the date

of this decision [citations omitted].

(Id. at 16-19.) 

V. STANDARD OF REVIEW

To qualify for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, an

applicant must show that: (1) He or she suffers from a medically

determinable impairment that can be expected to result in death or that has

lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of twelve months

7 13cv2418

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/14/14 Page 7 of 13
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

or more, and (2) the impairment renders the applicant incapable of

performing the work that he or she previously performed or any other

substantially gainful employment that exists in the national economy. See

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A), (2)(A). An applicant must meet both

requirements to be “disabled.” Id. Further, the applicant bears the burden

of proving that he or she was either permanently disabled or subject to a

condition which became so severe as to disable the applicant prior to the

date upon which his or her disability insured status expired. Johnson v.

Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995). 

A. Sequential Evaluation of Impairments

The Social Security Regulations outline a five-step process to

determine whether an applicant is "disabled." The five steps are as

follows: (1) Whether the claimant is presently working in any substantial

gainful activity. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the evaluation

proceeds to step two. (2) Whether the claimant’s impairment is severe. If

not, the claimant is not disabled. If so, the evaluation proceeds to step

three. (3) Whether the impairment meets or equals a specific impairment

listed in the Listing of Impairments. If so, the claimant is disabled. If not,

the evaluation proceeds to step four. (4) Whether the claimant is able to do

any work he has done in the past. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not,

the evaluation continues to step five. (5) Whether the claimant is able to do

any other work. If not, the claimant is disabled. Conversely, if the

Commissioner can establish there are a significant number of jobs in the

national economy that the claimant can do, the claimant is not disabled. 20

C.F.R. § 404.1520; see also Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th

Cir. 1999).

B. Judicial Review

Sections 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act allow

8 13cv2418

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/14/14 Page 8 of 13
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

unsuccessful applicants to seek judicial review of the Commissioner's final

agency decision. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). The scope of judicial

review is limited. The Commissioner’s final decision should not be

disturbed unless: (1) The ALJ's findings are based on legal error or (2) are

not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Schneider

v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 223 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla but less than a

preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d

1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court must consider the record as a

whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and detracts from the

Commissioner’s conclusion. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459

(9th Cir. 2001); Desrosiers v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d

573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988). “The ALJ is responsible for determining

credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and for resolving

ambiguities.” Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing

Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039). Where the evidence is susceptible to more

than one rational interpretation, the ALJ’s decision must be affirmed. 

Vasquez, 572 F.3d at 591 (citation and quotations omitted). 

Section 405(g) permits this Court to enter a judgment affirming,

modifying, or reversing the Commissioner’s decision. 42 U.S.C.A. §

405(g). The matter may also be remanded to the SSA for further

proceedings. Id. 

VI. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff does not challenge the ALJ’s findings at steps one through

four of the sequential evaluation of impairments. He contends the ALJ

erred in her determination at step five by failing to consult a vocational

9 13cv2418

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/14/14 Page 9 of 13
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

expert to evaluate the effects of his nonexertional impairments on his ability

to perform the full range of light work. (Pl.’s Mem. at 10-13.) He argues

the ALJ improperly relied on the “grids” to find there are jobs that exist in

significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform, in

that a limitation to only occasional fine manipulation is a significant

nonexertional limitation not contemplated by the grids. In other words, he

contends the ALJ improperly reached her own conclusion that a limitation

to occasional fingering, or fine manipulation, has only a minimal impact on

the remaining occupational base. (Id. at 11-12.) 

At step five, the ALJ may obtain the testimony of a vocational expert

or may refer to the Medical-Vocational Guidelines at 20 C.F.R. pt. 404,

subpt. P, app. 2 (commonly referred to as “the grids”) to meet the burden of

showing there is other work in significant numbers in the national economy

the claimant can perform. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1100-01. “The grids are

matrices of the ‘four factors identified by Congress–physical ability, age,

education, and work experience–and set forth rules that identify whether

jobs requiring specific combinations of these factors exist in significant

numbers in the national economy.’” Lockwood v. Commissioner, 616 F.3d

1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2010). The grids direct a finding of either “disabled” or

“non-disabled.” Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1101. Use of the grids at step five is

justified so long as they completely and accurately represent a claimant’s

limitations. Id. (emphasis in original). Significant nonexertional

impairments may make reliance on the grids inappropriate. Desrosiers,

846 F.2d at 577.2

 The fact that a nonexertional limitation is alleged,

2

 “Exertional capacity” relates to an individual’s physical strength and ability to perform the following seven strength demands: Sitting, standing,

walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling. See Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8P, 1996 WL 374184, at *5. “Nonexertional capacity” relates to the

limitations and restrictions not reflected in the seven strength demands, and

concerns an individual’s postural (e.g., stooping, climbing), manipulative (e.g.,

10 13cv2418

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/14/14 Page 10 of 13
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

however, does not automatically preclude application of the grids. Id. The

ALJ must first determine if the nonexertional limitations significantly limit

the range of work permitted by a claimant’s exertional limitations. Id. Only

if a nonexertional impairment is sufficiently severe that it limits the

claimant’s functional capacity in ways not contemplated by the grids would

use of the grids be inappropriate. Id.; see also Bates v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d

1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Bunnell v.

Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1991).

Here, in determining that Plaintiff was not disabled, the ALJ relied on

Medical-Vocational Rule 202.14, which corresponds to a person with the

residual functional capacity to perform light work (lifting no more than 20

pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to

10 pounds), closely approaching advanced age (persons age 50-54), high

school graduate or more, and skilled or semiskilled with skills not

transferable, which directs a finding of “not disabled.” See 20 C.F.R. pt.

404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 202.14; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(d) (defining age as

vocational factor); id. at § 404.1567(b) (defining light work). When a

claimant, such as Plaintiff, has impairments that result in both strength

limitations and nonexertional limitations, the grids “provide a framework for

consideration of how much the individual’s work capacity is further

diminished in terms of any types of jobs that would be contraindicated by

the nonexertional limitations.” See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, §

200.00(e)(2). After it has been decided that an impaired person can meet

the primary strength requirements of sedentary, light, or medium work, a

further decision may be required as to how much of this potential

reaching, handling), visual (seeing), communicative (hearing, speaking), and

mental (e.g., understanding and remembering instructions and responding

appropriately to supervision) abilities, as well as the individual’s ability to tolerate

various environmental factors. Id. at *6. 

11 13cv2418

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/14/14 Page 11 of 13
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

occupational base remains, considering the nonexertional limitations a

claimant has. SSR 83-14, 1983 WL 31254, at *2. “A particular . . .

nonexertional limitation may have very little effect on the range of work

remaining that an individual can perform.” Id. at *3. 

Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by failing to consult with a vocational

expert regarding the effect of his limitation to occasional fingering on the

occupational base for light work. “‘Fingering’ involves picking, pinching, or

otherwise working primarily with the fingers.” SSR 85-15, 1985 WL 56857,

at *7. “It is needed to perform most unskilled sedentary jobs and to

perform certain skilled and semiskilled jobs at all levels of exertion.” Id.

However, “many unskilled light jobs do not entail fine use of the fingers.” 

SSR 83-14, at *4. “Rather, they require gross use of the hands to grasp,

hold, and turn objects.” Id.; see also SSR 83-10, 1983 WL 31251, at *6

(“Many unskilled light jobs . . . require use of arms and hands to grasp and

to hold and turn objects, and they generally do not require use of the

fingers for fine activities to the extent required in much sedentary work.”).

As the above rulings demonstrate, there is a wide range of light work

requiring grasping, holding, and turning, all of which the ALJ found Plaintiff

could perform, and which Plaintiff does not contest. Although Plaintiff can

only perform occasional fingering, light work does not require this type of

activity to the extent that most sedentary work does. When it is very clear

that an additional limitation or restriction has very little effect on the

exertional occupational base, the conclusion directed by the grids is not

affected. SSR 83-14, at *6. Only if the adjudicator does not have a clear

understanding of the effects of additional limitations on the job base are the

services of a vocational specialist or expert necessary. Id. That was not

the case here. The Court accordingly finds the ALJ’s use of the grids to

make a finding of not disabled was appropriate under these circumstances.

12 13cv2418

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/14/14 Page 12 of 13
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

VII. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment should be DENIED and Defendant’s cross-motion for summary

judgment should be GRANTED.

This report and recommendation will be submitted to the Honorable

William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge assigned to this case,

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties on or

before December 5, 2014. The document should be captioned “Objections

to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to the Objections shall be

served and filed on or before December 15, 2014. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991). 

DATED: November 14, 2014 

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

13 13cv2418

Case 3:13-cv-02418-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/14/14 Page 13 of 13