Fay v. Saul

Opinion

SUSAN FAY, Case No. 20-cv-02201-BAS-DEB Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) APPROVING AND v. ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN ITS

ENTIRETY (ECF No. 21); ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of

Social Security, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Defendant. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 14); AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 19) Plaintiff Susan Fay commenced this action under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to challenge the Social Security Administration’s denial of her application for disability benefits. Under General Order 707, the Clerk of Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Daniel E. Butcher for a proposed disposition. (ECF No. 2.) On May 26, 2022, Judge Butcher issued a Report and Recommendation judgment, and (2) grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (R&R 13:15–21, ECF No. 21.) The time for filing objections expired on June 10, 2022. (Id. 14:1–3.) Both parties are represented by counsel. Neither party has filed any objections nor requested additional time to do so. Hence, the R&R is ripe for consideration. The court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This rule of law is well- established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting R&R in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the R&R despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004). In the social-security context, the district court’s jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the Social Security Administration’s denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A district court may overturn a decision to deny benefits only if it is not Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995); Magallenes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). The Ninth Circuit defines substantial evidence as “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. Determinations of credibility, resolution of conflicts in medical testimony, and all other ambiguities are to be resolved by the administrative law judge (“ALJ”). See id.; Magallenes, 881 F.2d at 750. Indeed, the decision of the ALJ will be upheld if the evidence is “susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1040. In this case, the deadline for filing objections was June 10, 2022. However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a review of the R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Butcher’s reasoning is sound and correct in recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Judge Butcher thoroughly and convincingly addressed Plaintiff’s arguments that the ALJ improperly discounted her treating physician’s opinions and Plaintiff’s testimony. (R&R 4:3–13:13.) The Court agrees that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s disability determination. Therefore, the Court approves and adopts the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). // // // // // // . CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, the Court APPROVES and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF No. 21), DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14), and GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. / DATED: June 14, 2022 Lin A (Lyphaa. 6 United States District Judge