Andranik Karagulyan v. Kilolo Kijakazi

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 1, 2023
• Docket: 2:21-cv-07403
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-07403-SPG-JDE Document 25 Filed 02/01/23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:657

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 ANDRANIK KARAGULYAN, ) Case No. 2:21-cv-07403-SPG-JDE ) 12 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 ) AND RECOMMENDATION OF v. ) 14 ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting ) JUDGE ) 15 Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) 16 Defendant. ) ) 17 ) 18 19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, the 20 Joint Stipulation of the parties, the records on file, the Report and 21 Recommendation of the assigned United States Magistrate Judge, the 22 Objections to the Report filed by Plaintiff, and the Reply to the Objections filed 23 by Defendant. The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of 24 the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The 25 Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 26 To the extent Plaintiff attempts to raise new arguments in the 27 Objections, the Court declines to formally address these belatedly-asserted 28 ase 2:21-cv-07403-SPG-JDE Document 25 Filed 02/01/23 Page2of2 Page ID#:65

1 allegations. A district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider 2 evidence or claims presented for the first time in objections to a report and 3 recommendation. See Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2002); see 4 || also United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000). Importantly, 5 || Petitioner is represented by counsel in this social security matter and his new 6 arguments are not novel, factors that weigh against the Court’s review of tardy 7 arguments. See Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1231 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court 8 || abuses its discretion when it fails to consider new and “novel” arguments ? presented by a pro se habeas petitioner in objecting to a magistrate judges report 10 and recommendation). Nevertheless, the Court has considered all of Plaintiffs i argument as presented in the Objections and find they lack merit. 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and dismissing this matter ‘4 with prejudice. 15 16 17 ||Dated: February 1, 2023 6 H-——— 19 SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28