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