Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00664/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00664-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405wc Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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

CHRISTINE CORONADO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv664-WQH-NLS

ORDER

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 20) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes, recommending

that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) be denied and Defendant’s

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) be granted.

I. Background

On October 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance

benefits, alleging disability beginning December 1, 2009. Plaintiff filed an application

for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) on the same date. Plaintiffs claims were

denied at the initial level and upon reconsideration. Plaintiff then requested a hearing

before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), which was held on September 16, 2014. 

On November 15, 2014, the ALJ issued a written decision finding that Plaintiff is not

disabled under section 216(I) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act. (AR 23). On

February 25, 2015, the Appeals Council for the Social Security Administration denied

Plaintiff’s request for further review. (AR 1). 

- 1 - 15cv664-WQH-NLS

Case 3:15-cv-00664-WQH-NLS Document 21 Filed 06/29/16 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 March 25, 2015, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, commenced this action

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

1383(c)(3). (ECF No. 1). On September 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment. (ECF No. 14). On November 4, 2015, Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for

Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 17).

On April 27, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 20). 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 adequately considered

Plaintiff’s obesity in his RFC determination to the extent required.” Id. at 8. The

Magistrate Judge also found that “substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s

determination at step four of the sequential process that Plaintiff could perform her

previous relevant work as actually and generally performed in the national economy.” 

Id. at 12. The Report and Recommendation states that any objections to the Report and

Recommendation must be filed on or before May 11, 2016, and “[t]he parties are

advised that any 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 13.

The docket reflects that no objections to the Report and Recommendation have

been filed.

II. 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 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

- 2 - 15cv664-WQH-NLS

Case 3:15-cv-00664-WQH-NLS Document 21 Filed 06/29/16 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

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

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

evidence and the ALJ applied the correct legal standards.

III. Conclusion

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

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

14) is denied; and (3) Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17)

is granted. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and

against Plaintiff.

DATED: June 29, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 15cv664-WQH-NLS

Case 3:15-cv-00664-WQH-NLS Document 21 Filed 06/29/16 Page 3 of 3