Magdziak v. Berryhill

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DARYL M. MAGDZIAK, Case No.: 17cv1367-JAH (RNB) ORDER: 11 Plaintiff,

12 v. (1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND 13 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 31); Commissioner of Social Security, 14 Defendant. (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 15 MOTION FOR SUMMARY 16 JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 26), and

17 (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 18 CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 27) 19 20 INTRODUCTION 21 The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 22 No. 31), issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block, recommending that 23 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 26), be denied and Defendant's 24 Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 27), be granted. After careful 25 consideration of the entire record, the Court (1) ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report 26 and Recommendation; (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) 27 GRANTS Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 28 1 BACKGROUND 2 On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits. 3 (Doc. 16-5 at 2). Plaintiff's claim was denied at the initial level and upon reconsideration. 4 (Doc. No. 16-4 at 4-10). Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an administrative law 5 judge (“ALJ”), which was held on April 19, 2016. (Id. at 22, 31). On May 6, 2016, the ALJ 6 issued a written decision finding that Plaintiff has not been under a disability, as defined in 7 the Social Security Act, “from the amended alleged onset date to the date last insured.” 8 (See Doc. No. 16-2 at 24). On June 9, 2017, the Appeals Council for the Social Security 9 Administration denied Plaintiff's request for further review. (Doc. No. 16-2 at 2). 10 On July 6, 2017, Plaintiff commenced this action seeking judicial review of 11 Defendant's decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On January 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed 12 a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 26). On February 21, 2019, Defendant filed a 13 Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 27). 14 On August 14, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. 15 (Doc. No. 31). The Report and Recommendation recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for 16 Summary Judgment be denied and Defendant's Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment be 17 granted. 18 The Report and Recommendation states, “Any party having objections to the Court’s 19 proposed findings and recommendations shall serve and file specific written objections 20 within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation.” (Doc. 21 No. 31 at 33). The docket reflects that no objections to the Report and Recommendation 22 have been filed. 23 REVIEW OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 24 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 25 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 26 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 27 report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 28 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 1 The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation 2 to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 3 2005); U.S. v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 4 A court “will disturb the denial of benefits only if the decision contains legal error 5 or is not supported by substantial evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 6 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a 7 reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The evidence must be 8 more than a mere scintilla but not necessarily a preponderance.” Id. (quotations omitted). 9 Even if an ALJ commits errors, “[a] decision of the ALJ will not be reversed for errors that 10 are harmless.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Stout v. 11 Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We have ... affirmed 12 under the rubric of harmless error where the mistake was nonprejudicial to the claimant or 13 irrelevant to the ALJ's ultimate disability conclusion.”). 14 After review of the Report and Recommendation, the written opinion of the ALJ, 15 the administrative record, and the submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that the 16 Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ articulated specific and legitimate reasons 17 based on substantial evidence in the record for rejecting Plaintiff’s claim. The Magistrate 18 Judge correctly found that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision that Plaintiff is 19 not disabled. 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 CONCLUSION 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation, (Doc. No. 3 ||31), is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 4 ||26), is DENIED; and (3) Defendant's Cross—Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 5 is GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff. 6 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 || DATED: November 18, 2019 9 10 ul & A. HOUSTON JUnited States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28