| FILED | | AUG 26 2019 | 3 DISTRICT OF Lv 4 BY DEPUTY |

5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 || LANCE HERMIZ, Case No.: 3:18-cv-01035-BEN-KSC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER: 11 || (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 || NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting RECOMMENDATION; 13 Commissioner of Social Security, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 14 Defendant.| MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; and (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 17 JUDGMENT 18 Plaintiff Lance Hermiz filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social 19 || Security Commissioner’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and 20 |) supplemental security income benefits. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, 21 || and Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to 22 || Plaintiff's motion. 23 On August 9, 2019, the Honorable Karen 8. Crawford issued a thoughtful and 24 || thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff's 25 || motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary 26 ||judgment. Magistrate Judge Crawford found that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) 27 || provided specific reasons for his conclusion of Plaintiff's non-disability and that the 28 record supports the ALJ’s findings. With respect to Plaintiff's credibility and claims of

1 || greater disability, Judge Crawford found that the ALJ specifically identified which 2 |/portions of Plaintiff's testimony were not credible and provided clear and convincing 3 |jreasons for discounting that testimony. Judge Crawford explained that the ALJ properly 4 evaluated, among other things, Plaintiff’s participation in daily activities, his conservative 5 ||treatment for the severe symptoms alleged, and the inconsistency between the objective 6 ||evidence and the severe symptoms alleged. Objections to the Report and 7 ||Recommendation were due August 19, 2019. Neither party has filed any objections. 8 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 9 || magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 10 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 11 |/recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 12 However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 13 ||judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 14 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also 15 || Wang v. Masaitis,

, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 16 statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 17 || that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia,

. 18 The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 19 |} Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 21). Plaintiffs motion 20 || for summary judgment is DENIED. (Docket No. 13). Defendant’s cross-motion for 21 |)summary judgment is GRANTED. (Docket No. 16). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED 22 the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. The Clerk 23 shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate the case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: August 2019 ties. How, Reger T. Benite 27 ited States DistrietJudge 28