Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Annalise Joy Sanchez, No. CV-21-00155-PHX-DLR 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

16 On August 26, 2022, Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff Annalise Joy Sanchez’s application for Social Security disability benefits. (Doc. 40.) On March 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 41.) The Commissioner timely responded. (Doc. 42.) After reviewing the Report and Recommendation de novo and considering the arguments raised in Plaintiff’s Objection, United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003), the Court will overrule the Objection and adopt Judge Metcalf’s Recommendation.

24 In her Objection, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by failing to find her migraine headaches and EDS were severe impairments at step two of the sequential evaluation process. (Doc. 41 at 3.) To address this issue, Plaintiff incorporated her Opening Brief by reference. (Id.) Further, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate erred by “posit[ing] that an ALJ’s finding that an impairment is not severe can only ever be harmful if the ALJ || concludes the entire sequential evaluation at step two of the sequential evaluation,” (and 2|| the ALJ did not conclude the entire sequential evaluation at step two). (/d. at 4.)

3 Plaintiff also objects to the R&R finding that the ALJ properly evaluated medical 4|| opinions from Drs. Moe and Saperstein. (/d.) Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to explain || consistencies, did not address which limitations were “extreme,” provided her own medical || opinion, and did not explain why the medical opinions were not supported. (/d. at 4-9.)

7 Finally, Plaintiff objects to the R&R’s finding that the ALJ did not err by only || partially crediting her symptom testimony. (/d. at 9.) She argues that the ALJ did not 9|| adequately identify purported inconsistencies between her testimony and the medial |} record. Ud. at 9-10.)

11 The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Metcalf’'s R&R, which thoroughly || addressed the arguments Plaintiff presents in her Objection. (See Doc. 40.) The Court || agrees with Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s analysis and conclusions, including Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial || evidence. Accordingly, the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s objections and adopt the R&R. 16 IT IS ORDERED that 17 1. Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. 41) is OVERRULED.

18 2. Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40) 19 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

20 3. This case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 21 accordingly and terminate this case.

22 Dated this 30th day of September, 2022.

25 {Z, 26 _- Ch 27 Uaited States Dicwic Judge _2-