Case 2:21-cv-07041-FWS-DFM Document 33 Filed 01/30/23 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:696

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

Case No. 2:21-cv-07041-FWS-DFM 11

12 EREDINA J., ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,

13 CONCLUSIONS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [28] 15 v.

16 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING 17 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 18 SECURITY, 19 Defendant. 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 2:21-cv-07041-FWS-DFM Document 33 Filed 01/30/23 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:697

1 I. Introduction and Relevant Procedural History

2 Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation issued 3 on December 8, 2022 (the “Report and Recommendation”), (Dkt. 28), regarding 4 Plaintiff Eredina J’s (“Plaintiff”) appeal of the decision made by the Administrative 5 Law Judge (“ALJ”) denying a claim for supplemental security income under Title 6 XVI of the Social Security Act. (Dkt. 1.) Based on the state of the record, as applied 7 to the applicable law, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, including 8 each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein. 9 On September 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint, including the allegation 10 that the “conclusions and findings of fact of the defendant are not supported by 11 substantial evidence and are contrary to law and regulation.” (Dkt. 1.) On February 12 8, 2022, Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi (“Defendant”) filed an Answer to the Complaint. 13 (Dkt. 14.) In addition, the Certified Administrative Record (Social Security) of 14 Defendant (the “CAR”) was also filed on February 8, 2022. (Dkt. 15.) 15 On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively, “Parties”) filed a 16 Joint Submission (“Joint Submission”). (Dkt. 26.) In the Joint Submission, Plaintiff 17 and Defendant included a summary of the case and medical evidence, statements of 18 disputed issues, the Parties’ issues and contentions, and the relief requested by the 19 Parties. (Id.) 20 On December 8, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and 21 Recommendation. (Dkt. 28.) On December 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed Objections to the 22 Report and Recommendation (“Plaintiff’s Objections”). (Dkt. 29.) On January 27, 23 2023, Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 24 Report and Recommendation (“Defendant’s Reply”). (Dkt. 32.) 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28

-2- Case 2:21-cv-07041-FWS-DFM Document 33 Filed 01/30/23 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:698

1 II. Analysis

2 “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 3 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 4 § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (stating “[t]he district judge must 5 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 6 properly objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 7 recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 8 magistrate judge with instructions”). Proper objections require “specific written 9 objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of 11 those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to 12 which objection is made.”

(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna- 13 Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the 14 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 15 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Where no objection has been made, 16 arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See

(b)(1)(C) 17 (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file 18 written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by 19 rules of court.”). Moreover, “[o]bjections to a R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the 20 same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.” Chith v. 21 Haynes,

, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021). 22 In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge summarized the 23 parties’ disputes as follows: 24 The parties dispute whether the ALJ properly (1) discounted Plaintiff’s 25 subjective testimony, (2) crafted the [Residual Functional Capacity], and 26 (3) considered Plaintiff’s manipulative limitations. 27

28

-3- Case 2:21-cv-07041-FWS-DFM Document 33 Filed 01/30/23 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:699

1 (Dkt. 28 at 4.)

2 Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge evaluated the record on the topics of 3 “Subjective Symptom Testimony,” “Residual Functional Capacity,” and “Dupuytren’s 4 Contracture.” (Id. at 4-13.) After completing the evaluation of the record, the 5 Magistrate Judge concluded that the “ALJ’s denial of benefits [should] be affirmed 6 and that this case be dismissed with prejudice.” (Id. at 13.) 7 In Plaintiff’s Objections, in summary, Plaintiff argues the following: (1) “The 8 Magistrate Judge’s finding that the ALJ properly discredited Ms. Juarez’s 9 psychological symptomology evidence should be rejected;” (2) “The Magistrate 10 Judge’s finding that [t]he ‘ALJ properly synthesized the medical and other evidence to 11 reach the RFC’ should be rejected;” and (3) “The Magistrate Judge’s determination 12 that the ALJ’s conclusion that Dupuytren’s contracture was not [a medically 13 determinable impairment] at step [t]wo was not harmful error [and] should be 14 rejected.” (Dkt. 29 at 4-18.) In Plaintiff’s Objections, Plaintiff concludes, “The 15 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations that the ALJ’s decision be 16 affirmed should be rejected.” (Id. at 18.) 17 In Defendant’s Reply, in summary, Defendant argues the following: 18 (1) “Plaintiff appears to make many of the same arguments that she made previously 19 in her briefing;” (2) “The Magistrate Judge reasonably found that the ALJ properly 20 evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony;” (3) “The Magistrate Judge 21 reasonably found that the ALJ properly determined her residual functional capacity;” 22 and (4) “The Magistrate Judge reasonably found that the ALJ properly considered 23 Plaintiff’s Dupuytren’s Contracture.” (Dkt. 32 at 2-6.) Defendant concludes that the 24 court should “accept the Magistrate Judge’s Report.” (Id. at 6.) 25 In this case, after conducting a de novo review of Plaintiff’s Objections and 26 Defendant’s Reply with regard to the Report and Recommendation, the court agrees 27 with each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and 28 Recommendation, including the recommendation that “ALJ’s denial of benefits be

-4- ase 2:21-cv-07041-FWS-DFM Document 33 Filed 01/30/23 Page5of5 Page ID #:700

1 | affirmed and that this case be dismissed with prejudice.” (Dkt. 28 at 13.) 2 | Accordingly, Plaintiff's Objections are OVERRULED on their merits. 3 In sum, pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the record, 4 | including the Report and Recommendation, the Complaint, the Answer, the CAR, 5 | Plaintiff's Objections, Defendant’s Reply, and the other records of the case. After 6 | conducting a de novo determination of the portions of the Report and 7 | Recommendation to which Plaintiff's Objections pertain, the Court concurs with and 8 | accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the Report and 9 | Recommendation. 10 II. Conclusion 1] Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the Court 12 | adopts the Report and Recommendation, including each of the findings of fact and 13 | conclusions of law therein. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 14 15 (1) The Decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration 16 is AFFIRMED. . (2) This Action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

19 (3) Judgment is to be entered accordingly. 20 a DATED: January 30, 2023 22 Za, /—— 23 Hon. Fred W. Slaughter 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28

-5-