Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mathews v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 23, 2008

PATRICIA MATHEWS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge

ORDER

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 24) filed on April 7, 2008.

On August 31, 2004, Plaintiff Patricia Marie Mathews applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The Commissioner denied the application initially and upon reconsideration. Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On June 30, 2006, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not under a disability as defined by the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council declined review.

On January 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case seeking judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.

On April 7, 2008, Magistrate Judge Papas issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this court grant the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 21), deny Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 22), and remand for further proceedings. The Magistrate Judge ordered that any party file written objections to the Report and Recommendation no later than May 5, 2008. No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, "[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

CONCLUSION

This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the ALJ did not provide specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinions of three treating physicians and that substantial evidence does not exist to support the findings of the ALJ. The Report and Recommendation filed on April 7, 2008 (Doc. # 24) is adopted by this Court in its entirety.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 21) is granted and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 22) is denied. This action is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this order.

WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge

20080523

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.