IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JEFF ARTHURS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

MERRILL SCHNEIDER 

Schneider Kerr & Gibney Law Offices 

P.O. Box 14490 

Portland, Oregon 97293 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

S. AMANDA MARSHALL 

United States Attorney 

RONALD K. SILVER 

Assistant United States Attorney 

ADRIAN L. BROWN 

Assistant United States Attorney 

1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2902 

LARS J. NELSON 

Social Security Administration 

701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A 

Seattle, Washington 98104-7075 

Attorneys for Defendant 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

3:13-cv-00817-MA 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 1 of 17
MARSH, Judge. 

Plaintiff, Jeff Arthurs, brings this action for judicial 

review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 

(the Commissioner) denying his application for disability insurance 

benefits (DIE) under Title II of the Social Security Act (the Act). 

See 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). For the reasons set forth below, I affirm the 

final decision of the Commissioner. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff protectively filed an application for DIE on June 

29, 2009, alleging disability beginning June 15, 2008, caused by 

back pain and associated arm and shoulder limitations. Tr. 173. 

Plaintiff's claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration. 

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing on February 25, 

2011, at which Plaintiff testified and was represented by counsel. 

Tr. 35-48. Joselyn E. Bailey, M.D., reviewed the medical record 

and testified at the hearing. Tr. 48-51. In addition, vocational 

expert Nancy Bloom was present throughout the hearing and 

testified. Tr. 52-57. 

On March 24, 2011, the ALJ issued a decision denying 

Plaintiff's application. Tr. 20-27. The Appeals Council declined 

review and Plaintiff timely appealed to this court. Tr. 1-3. 

Ill 

Ill 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 2 of 17
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

Born on April 12, 1956, Plaintiff was 52 years old on the 

alleged onset date of disability and 54 year~ old on the date of 

the hearing. Tr. 169. Plaintiff has a high school equivalency and 

past relevant work as a Machinist, Printer Repair Technician and 

Office Equipment Repairer, Assembly Worker, Maintenance Worker, 

Welder and Fabricator, and R.V. Repairer. Tr. 26, 178. 

In addition to his hearing testimony, Plaintiff submitted an 

Adult Function Report, a Pain and Fatigue Questionnaire, and a Work 

History Report. Tr. 180-97. Amy Henninger, M.D., Plaintiff's 

primary care provider, submitted an opinion and Physical Residual 

Functional Capacity Assessment. Tr. 316-20. Neal E. Berner, M.D., 

reviewed the medical record and submitted a Physical Residual 

Functional Capacity Assessment. Tr. 286-93. 

THE ALJ'S DISABILITY ANALYSIS 

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential 

process for determining whether a person is disabled. Bowen v. 

Yuckert, 482 U.S. 

404.1520(a) (4) (i)-(v), 

137, 140-42 (1987); 

416.920(a) (4) (i)-(v). 

20 C.F.R. §§ 

Each step is 

potentially dispositive. The claimant bears the burden of proof at 

Steps One through Four. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th 

Cir. 1999). The burden shifts to the Commissioner at Step Five to 

show that a significant number of jobs exist in the national 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 3 of 17
economy that the claimant can perform. See Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 

141-42; Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098. 

At Step One, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff engaged in 

substantial gainful activity between the alleged onset date, June 

15, 2008, and his date last insured, December 31, 2013, but that 

such work constituted an unsuccessful work attempt despite no 

evidence of special work accommodations, frequent absences, or 

unsatisfactory work. 

seq.; Tr. 22. 

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 404.1571 et 

At Step Two, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's back pain was 

a severe impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); Tr. 22. 

At Step Three, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff does not have 

an impairment or combination of impairments that meet or medically 

equal any listed impairment. 

404.1525, 404.1526; Tr. 23. 

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 

The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the residual functional 

capacity (RFC) to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1567(b), except that Plaintiff is further limited in that he 

can only lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; push 

or pull up to 20 pounds, but for not more than five minutes at one 

time; walk on a level surface for approximately two blocks at one 

time; stand for 30 minutes at one time, with an allowance for some 

shuffling; sit for 45 minutes at one time; and climb six stairsteps using a handrail. In addition, the ALJ found Plaintiff has 

4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 4 of 17
complete loss of hearing in his left ear, but fully functional 

hearing in his right ear; a slight impairment in short-term memory; 

and a moderate impairment of his ability to maintain focus and 

attention on account of interruption by pain. Tr. 23-26. 

At Step Four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is capable of 

performing his past relevant work as a Printer Repair Technician 

and Office Equipment Repairer as it was actually performed and as 

is generally performed in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1565; Tr. 26. 

Accordingly, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled 

within the meaning of the Act. 

ISSUES ON REVIEW 

Plaintiff raises four issues on appeal. First, Plaintiff 

argues the ALJ improperly discredited his testimony. Second, 

Plaintiff maintains the ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Henninger's 

opinion. Third, Plaintiff asserts the ALJ's RFC findings did not 

prescribe sufficiently specific limitations as to Plaintiff's 

walking and standing limitations, hearing loss, or memory and 

attention limitations. Finally, Plaintiff argues the ALJ made 

erroneous findings at Step Four by concluding that Plaintiff could 

perform past relevant work as actually and generally performed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The court must affirm the Commissioner's decision if the 

Commissioner applied proper legal standards and the findings are 

5 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 5 of 17
supported by substantial evidence in the record. 42 u.s.c. § 

405(g); Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). 

"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, 

53 F.3d at 1039. The court must weigh all of the evidence, whether 

it supports or detracts from the Commissioner's decision. Martinez 

v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 771, 772 (9th Cir. 1986). If the evidence is 

susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the 

Commissioner's decision must be upheld. Andrews, 53 F. 3d at 

1039-40. If the evidence supports the Commissioner's conclusion, 

the Commissioner must be affirmed; "the court may not substitute 

its judgment for that of the Commissioner." Edlund v. Massanari, 

253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). 

DISCUSSION 

I. Plaintiff's Testimony 

In deciding whether to accept subjective symptom testimony, an 

ALJ must perform two stages of analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. 

First, the claimant must produce objective medical evidence of an 

underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce 

the symptoms alleged. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281-82 (9th 

Cir. 1996). Second, absent a finding of malingering, the ALJ can 

reject the claimant's testimony about the severity of his symptoms 

6 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 6 of 17
only by offering specific, clear, and convincing reasons for doing 

so. Id. at 1281. 

If an ALJ finds that the claimant's testimony regarding his 

subjective symptoms is unreliable, the "ALJ must make a credibility 

determination citing the reasons why the testimony is 

unpersuasive." Morgan v. Comm'r Soc. Sec: Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 

599 (9th Cir. 1999). In doing so, the ALJ must identify what 

testimony is credible and what testimony undermines the claimant's 

complaints, and make "findings sufficiently specific to permit the 

court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit [the] 

claimant's testimony." Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th 

Cir. 2002). The ALJ may rely upon ordinary techniques of 

credibility evaluation in weighing the claimant's credibility. 

Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Plaintiff testified at the hearing that his back pain is 

almost constant and is aggravated by many activities of daily 

living including mowing the lawn, washing dishes, and vacuuming. 

Tr. 38. Plaintiff reported that he experiences numbness in his 

feet, problems with his hands, and pain in his neck as a result of 

his back problems. Tr. 40. Plaintiff stated these problems stem 

from a 1995 injury after which he was limited to lifting five 

pounds. Tr. 40. Since the injury, Plaintiff reported his symptoms 

have consistently worsened and that he can still only lift five 

pounds or less. Tr. 41. Plaintiff indicated that he can stand for 

7 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 7 of 17
15 to 20 minutes at one time and can only sit for approximately 30 

minuies at a time. Tr. 41. As to reaching limitations, Plaintiff 

testified that he cannot hold his arms straight out or above his 

shoulders. 

Plaintiff reported that he worked full-time as a machinist 

from July of 2010 until January of 2011. Tr. 35. Plaintiff 

testified that in this work he stood for eight to ten hours per 

day, bent over, and loaded and unloaded machines. Tr. 36. 

Plaintiff reported that he had to take extensive pain medication to 

get through the day and was "dismissed" because he "couldn't take 

the pain of doing the job anymore." Tr. 36-37. 

In his Adult Function Report dated July 26, 2009, Plaintiff 

reported his daily activities are to wake up, drink coffee, look 

for employment, and mow the lawn. Tr. 180. Plaintiff reported 

that he cannot bend, squat, run, stand, or sit. Tr. 181. 

Plaintiff indicated that he performs some household repairs, mows 

the lawn, and washes the dishes, although he cannot stand for long 

periods of time and some of these activities take longer than 

usual. Tr. 182. Plaintiff checked that his impairments affect his 

abilities to lift, squat, bend, stand, reach, walk, sit, kneel, 

climb stairs, remember, complete tasks, concentrate, understand, 

use his hands, and get along with others. Tr. 185. As to his 

ability to walk, Plaintiff specified that he can walk approximately 

one-half of a mile before requiring 15 minutes of rest. Tr. 185. 

8 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 8 of 17
As to his previous work, Plaintiff noted that he left his prior job 

because his supervisor would not give him a raise. Tr. 186. 

The ALJ partially discounted Plaintiff's testimony because the 

extent of his alleged limitations was inconsistent with reports of 

his activities of daily living as well as the performance of 

physically demanding work during the period of disability. In 

addition, the ALJ rejected the severity of Plaintiff's alleged 

symptoms because they were inconsistent with the medical record and 

because Plaintiff did not follow through with prescribed treatment. 

I conclude these reasons, taken together, constitute clear and 

convincing reasons to reject the full extent of Plaintiff's 

testimony. 

The ALJ reasonably discredited Plaintiff's testimony because 

it was inconsistent with Plaintiff's work as a machinist during the 

alleged period of disability, between July of 2010 and January of 

2011. Indeed, Plaintiff's own report that this work consisted of 

" [ e] ight to ten hours a day standing and loading machines and 

unloading machines, bent over," is inconsistent with the allegation 

in his Function Report, which was completed before he performed 

this work, that he cannot bend or stand for extended periods. Tr. 

36, 181. Indeed, Plaintiff's testimony about the performance of 

this work is internally inconsistent with other portions of his 

hearing testimony in which he alleged he cannot lift more than five 

pounds or stand for more than 15 to 20 minutes. Tr. 41. 

9 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 9 of 17
The ALJ also reasonably found that.the medical record does not 

support Plaintiff's allegation that he left his most recent 

employment due to back pain. Al though Plaintiff continued to 

report back pain throughout this period of employment, the medical 

records most closely preceding the end of Plaintiff's employment 

suggest Plaintiff left his job for reasons other than back pain. 

On September 1, 2010, Plaintiff reported that while the work was 

hard on his back because he was standing a lot, he was in go9d 

spirits and hoping he could be hired on a more permanent basis. 

Tr. 352. Throughout the course of this employment, Plaintiff 

reported continued back pain, and noted instances in which he 

thought it was exacerbated by the physical demands of his job, but 

also occasionally expressed optimism about the work and a desire to 

work more hours and on a permanent basis. Tr. 340-52. 

By December 30, 2010, however, Plaintiff reported that he no 

longer enjoyed the job, and the next week stated that he was 

dissatisfied with his pay and the lack of intellectual challenge at 

work. Tr. 335-37. On January 18, 2011, the same month Plaintiff 

testified he left his work, Plaintiff stated he was worried because 

he would "no longer be able to get overtime" and "plan [ned] to look 

for another job." Tr. 334. While Plaintiff did report using pain 

medication to help his back pain, the ALJ reasonably found that the 

medical record does not support Plaintiff's allegation that he left 

10 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 10 of 17
his work during rhe alleged period of disability because he could 

not tolerate the physical demands of the job. 

In sum, the ALJ's citation to Plaintiff's recent work at a 

physically demanding job is a compelling reason to discount 

Plaintiff's testimony. Notably, the ALJ did not entirely reject 

Plaintiff's symptom testimony, but instead found that "evidence 

supports the conclusion that while the claimant does suffer from 

back pain, it does not prevent him from being able to perform all 

work activities." Tr. 25. The records concerning Plaintiff's work 

activity amply support this conclusion. 

The ALJ also reasonably discounted Plaintiff's testimony 

because the objective medical record did not support the full 

extent of Plaintiff's alleged limitations. On December 28, 2007, 

one of Plaintiff's treating physicians noted that Plaintiff's pain 

complaints were "out of proportion to exam." Tr. 249. In 

addition, the only specific reference in the record to imaging of 

Plaintiff's back contained generally mild findings. Tr. 320. 

Finally, the ALJ reasonably found that Plaintiff's resistance to 

Dr. Henninger's recommendation that Plaintiff work on core muscle 

strengthening to help his back pain suggested that Plaintiff's back 

pain is not as severe as alleged. Tr. 234. 

I conclude the above reasons, taken together, constitute clear 

and convincing reasons to partially discredit Plaintiff's symptom 

allegations. The ALJ properly weighed Plaintiff's testimony. 

11 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 11 of 17
II. Dr. Henninger's Opinion 

The Commissioner must provide clear and convincing reasons to 

reject the uncontradicted opinion of a treating or examining 

physician. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Where a physician's opinion is contradicted by that of another 

physician, the ALJ may reject the physician's opinion by providing 

specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence 

in the record. Id. "'The ALJ need not accept the opinion of any 

physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is 

brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical 

findings.'" Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 671 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(quoting Bray v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th 

Cir. 2009)). 

"'Where the record contains conflicting medical 

evidence, the ALJ is charged with determining credibility and 

resolving the conflict.'" Id. (quoting Benton v. Barnhart, 331 

F. 3d 1030, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003)). The ALJ is responsible· for 

translating the claimant's medical conditions into functional 

limitations in the RFC. See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 

1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008). Ultimately, the RFC is sufficient if 

it is "consistent with restrictions identified in the medical 

testimony." Id. 

On June 30, 2010, Dr. Henninger submitted an opinion and 

Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment. Dr. Henninger 

12 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 12 of 17
reported that Plaintiff has severe back pain that prevents him from 

staying in one position for a long period of time. Tr. 316. Dr. 

Henninger opined that Plaintiff can lift 25 pounds occasionally and 

10 pounds frequently, can stand or walk for 30 minutes at a time 

and a total of four hours in a workday, can sit for 45 minutes at 

a time for a total of four hours in a workday, but can never climb, 

balance, stoop or bend, kneel, crouch, or crawl. Tr. 317. Dr. 

Henninger reported that Plaintiff frequently suffers from pain and 

fatigue and occasionally suffered weakness. Tr. 318. As to 

Plaintiff's mental limitations, Dr. Henninger opined that Plaintiff 

is moderately impaired in concentration, persistence, or pace. due 

to his pain. Tr. 318. As to absences from work, Dr. Henninger 

stated that Plaintiff would miss two or more days of work per month 

on account of Plaintiff's "frequent severe back pain.a Tr. 319. 

Dr. Henninger's opinion was contradicted by the opinion of Dr. 

Berner, the reviewing physician who opined Plaintiff could sit, 

stand, and walk for a total of six hours in an eight-hour workday, 

and could occasionally climb, stoop, crouch, and crawl, and 

frequently balance and kneel. Tr. 286-93. Accordingly, the ALJ 

was required to cite specific and legitimate reasons to reject Dr. 

Henninger's opinion. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31. 

The ALJ gave Dr. Henninger's opinion only limited weight, but 

nonetheless incorporated the majority of Dr. Henninger's opined 

limitations into the.RFC. The ALJ rejected the portions of Dr. 

13 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 13 of 17
Henninger's opinion inconsistent with the RFC because the opinion 

was inconsistent with Plaintiff's subsequent work record. Indeed, 

Dr. Henninger' s opinion that Plaintiff would miss two or more 

workdays per month on account of his back pain is inconsistent with 

Plaintiff's record of working more than full-time for seven months, 

beginning the month after Dr. Henninger submitted her opinion. 

Moreover, Dr. Henninger's opinion that Plaintiff could only sit and 

stand for four hours per day, respectively, is inconsistent with 

Plaintiff's testimony that he stood for 8 to 10 hours per day in 

his subsequent work as a machinist. Tr. 36. Thus, the ALJ readily 

cited specific and legitimate reasons for the limited extent to 

which he rejected Dr. Henninger' s opinion. I conclude the ALJ 

properly weighed the medical testimony. 

III. Sufficiency of the RFC 

Plaintiff argues the ALJ's RFC findings were not sufficiently 

specific because the ALJ failed to explicitly set maximum limits 

for the amount Plaintiff could stand and walk in an eight-hour 

workday, and failed to include limitations based on Plaintiff's 

hearing loss and concentration limitations in the RFC. Plaintiff's 

arguments are without merit. 

Contrary to Plaintiff's suggestion, the ALJ did include 

maximum limits for walking and standing in the RFC. The ALJ 

limited Plaintiff to a range of light work with a series of 

exceptions further limiting Plaintiff, including Plaintiff's 

14 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 14 of 17
ability to stand or walk at one time. As to the maximum amount 

Plaintiff can walk in a full workday, however, the definition of 

"light work" provides that "the full range of light work requires 

standing or walking, off and on, for a total of approximately 6 

hours in an 8-hour workday." SSE 83-10, available at 1983 WL 

31251, at *6. Thus, the ALJ's limitation of Plaintiff to light 

work implicitly limited Plaintiff to standing or walking a maximum 

of six hours in an eight-hour day. Within that limitation, the ALJ 

further limited Plaintiff to walking no more that two blocks, or 

standing with allowance for shuffling for 30 minutes, at one time. 

The RFC was sufficiently specific as to Plaintiff's standing and 

walking limitations. 

Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ failed to specify 

limitations with respect Plaintiff's hearing loss or concentration 

deficits. The ALJ, however, included a "complete loss of hearing 

in his left ear," and a "moderate impairment" in the ability to 

"maintain focus [or] attention" in the RFC. Tr. 23-24. With 

respect to the limitation in maintaining focus or attention, the 

ALJ simply included Dr. Henninger's opinion that Plaintiff would be 

moderately limited in concentration, persistence, or pace in the 

RFC. Tr. 318. Thus, the ALJ' s inclusion of the moderate 

impairment in the ability to maintain focus or attention is 

appropriate because it is clearly "consistent with restrictions 

15 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 15 of 17
identified in the medical testimony." 1 See Stubbs-Danielson, 539 

F.3d at 1174. Similarly, the limitation regarding Plaintiff's loss 

of hearing in his left ear is consistent with the record evidence 

concerning Plaintiff's left ear limitations. Accordingly, I 

conclude the ALJ's RFC set forth sufficiently specific limitations 

based on substantial evidence in the record. 

IV. Step Four Finding 

At Step Four, "the claimant has the burden to prove that he 

cannot perform his prior relevant work 'either as actually 

performed or as generally performed in the national economy.'" 

Carmickle v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1166 (9th Cir. 

2008) (quoting Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 

2002)). The ALJ found Plaintiff is capable of performing his past 

relevant work as a Printer Repair Technician and Office Equipment 

Repairer as both actually and generally performed. Tr. 26. 

Plaintiff's only argument with respect to the "generally 

performed" finding is that the finding is erroneous based on the 

errors in the RFC discussed above. Because I have rejected 

Plaintiff's arguments with respect to the ALJ's consideration of 

Plaintiff's testimony, Dr. Henninger's opinion, and specificity of 

1 Dr. Henninger's check-the-box notation that Plaintiff is 

moderately limited in this respect is the most specific 

discussion of Plaintiff's concentration limitations in the 

medical record. Tr. 318. Accordingly, Plaintiff's argument that 

the ALJ should have been more specific in his discussion of 

Plaintiff's concentration limitations in the RFC is without 

merit. 

16 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 16 of 17
the RFC, I also conclude that the ALJ's Step Four finding with 

respect to whether Plaintiff can perform past relevant work as 

generally performed was not in error. Because the ALJ properly 

found Plaintiff can perform his past relevant work as generally 

performed in the national economy, any error in his consideration 

of whether Plaintiff can perform his past relevant work as actually 

performed would be harmless. Rodgers ex rel. Rodgers v. Astrue, 

No. 11-cv-0095-TC, 2012 WL 681624, at *3 (D. Or. Jan. 25, 2012); 

See also Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1166. Accordingly, I conclude the 

ALJ did not commit harmful error at Step Four. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the ALJ is 

AFFIRMED. 

IT rs so ORDERED. 

DATED this~ day of May, 2014. 

Malcolm F. Marsh 

United States District Judge 

17 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:13-cv-00817-MA Document 17 Filed 05/27/14 Page 17 of 17