Marcell Norris v. Martin O Malley

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-07083
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MARCELL N.1, Case No. CV 24-7083 AH (KES)

12 Plaintiff ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 FRANK BISIGNANO2, JUDGE Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the complaint, briefs, 18 Report and Recommendation of United State Magistrate Judge (“Report”; Dkt. No. 19 14), Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report (Dkt. 16; “Objections”), relevant portions of 20 the Administrative Record, and the other relevant records on file. 21 The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to 22 which Plaintiff has objected. Although not required, the Court briefly discusses the 23

24 1 Plaintiff’s name has been partially redacted in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court 25 Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United 26 States. 2 Frank Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security on May 6, 2025. 27 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), he is automatically substituted as Defendant in this suit. See Orosco v. Bisignano, No. 1:24-CV-01171 JLT GSA, 28 2025 WL 1665803, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2025). 1 following points. See United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) 2 (“the district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each 3 objection”); Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming a 4 cursory district court order summarily adopting, without addressing any objections, 5 a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). 6 Plaintiff generally repeats issues and arguments already presented in his 7 briefs. Compare Dkts. 9 at 5-6 & Dkt. 13 at 5 with Dkt. 16 at 3. Those were 8 adequately addressed in the Report. To the extent Plaintiff alleges the Report also 9 did not fully appreciate the waxing and waning of his mental-health symptoms, as he 10 alleged the ALJ failed to do (Dkt. 9 at 9; Dkt. 16 at 5-6), the findings cited in both 11 the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)’s decision and the Report showing 12 improvement and stability nonetheless are substantial evidence supporting the 13 administrative decision (Dkt. 14 at 9-10). See Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1156 14 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Although [claimant] argues that the ALJ failed to recognize the 15 inherently variable nature of mental illness, ‘[t]he court will uphold the ALJ’s 16 conclusion when the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational 17 interpretation.’” (citation omitted)). 18 Additionally, Plaintiff’s contention that the Report “applied the incorrect legal 19 standard” when it determined that opinions offered by a licensed social worker were 20 not medical opinions because the Report cited a pre-revised regulations case (Dkt. 21 16 at 7-8), is not a fair reading of the full Report. The Report specifically went on to 22 say that because the social worker “said that she assisted a psychiatrist in completing 23 the [medical source statement], the Court treats these opinions as coming from a 24 medical source” under the revised regulations (Dkt. 14 at 14), and evaluated them as 25 such under those revised regulations (id. at 16-19). See 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(a)(2) 26 (“A medical opinion is a statement from a medical source . . .”). Thus, even if the 27 Report erred by citing a pre-revised regulations case—which the Court does not 28 find—it nonetheless properly evaluated them as medical opinions under the revised 1 || regulations, including determining whether the ALJ’s decision to find the medical 2 || opinions unpersuasive was explained in terms of “supportability” and “consistency.” 3 |} (Dkt. 14 at 17-18 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(b)(2))). 4 The Objections are therefore OVERRULED. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 6 1. The Report (Dkt. No. 14) is ACCEPTED; 7 2. The Commissioner’s denial of benefits is AFFIRMED; 8 3. Judgment is to be ENTERED accordingly; and 9 4. The Clerk of the Court serve this Order and the Judgment on all 10 counsel or parties of record. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 . 13 || Dated: June 20, 2025 rmnti wars 14 ANNE HWANG | United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28