Augustine v. Berryhill

FILED 3 □ | JUN 102020 □□ 4 CLERK US DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTBICT OF CALIFORNIA ; BY DEPUTY 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10.

11 || EDNA AUGUSTINE, | Case No.: 3:19-cv-0826-BEN-RBM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: .

Lo _ (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of RECOMMENDATION; 15 Social Security, 16 . Defendant.| (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S -| MOTION FOR SUMMARY 17 JUDGMENT; AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 19 . CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT □ 21 [Docket Nos. 14 and 15] 22 Plaintiff Edna Augustine filed this action for judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s! denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. (Docket No, 24 .

26 When Plaintiff initiated this action, Nancy A. Berryhill was serving as the Acting || Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Andrew Saul is now serving as the 2g Commissioner. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Mr. Saul is automatically substituted as a party.

1 Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and Defendant filed a cross-motion for ||summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiffs motion. .

3 On April 14, 2020, Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro issued a || thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court ||deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Montenegro found the Administrative Law Judge _ 7 ||(*ALJ”) provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject Plaintiff's subjective allegations of impairment and the record supports the ALJ’s findings. Magistrate Judge □ ||Montenegro concluded the ALJ findings were based on objective medical evidence, the |) conservative nature of Plaintiffs treatments, and medical opinions from treating, |lconsulting, and examining physicians. These factors generally did not support Plaintiff's 12. subjective claims of disability. The ALJ also specifically found Plaintiffs hearing |/testimony undermined her claims of disability. Because Magistrate Judge Montenegro ||recommended affirming the ALJ’s decision, Magistrate Judge Montenegro did not j/analyze Plaintiff s request to “credit-as-true” the disability and award benefits.

16 || Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by April 28, 2020. Neither 17 party has filed any objections.

18 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a || magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 20 ||636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and |!recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

22 However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 23 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”

24 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also || Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005), “Neither the Constitution nox 26 statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations tha 27 parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

2 . ] The Court need not conduct de nove review given the absence of objections. The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the 1}Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's motion for summary ||judgment is DENIED. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

5 || Accordingly, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s final decision is || AFFIRMED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate the case.

7\| ITISSOORDERED. — g . . / - □ || Date: june 2, 2020 Litt, KK XR RE ( aed Sete: Dist , Indge

13 | □ 18 .

21 : 72 | .

27 oe 28°