Summary
noting cases that "uniformly rejected" arguments that Job Browser Pro data undermined vocational experts' testimony
Summary of this case from Marcelino P. v. SaulOpinion
CASE NO. 12-CV-2493-IEG (DHB)
09-05-2013
LORI MERRYFLORIAN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING IN FULL REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION ;
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; AND
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
CROSS-MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[Doc. Nos. 20, 14, 15]
On October 15, 2012, Plaintiff Lori Merryflorian filed a complaint under Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, requesting judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that denied her claim for disability benefits. (Doc. No. 1.) Thereafter, the Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick, who issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant Michael J. Astrue's cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 20.) The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on August 29, 2013. (R&R 12:5-7.) Both parties are represented by counsel, but to date, neither party has filed any objections.
DISCUSSION
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. But "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Id. "When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived." Marshall v. Astrue, No. 08cv1735, 2010 WL 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (Lorenz, J.).
In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on August 29, 2013. However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so. Accordingly, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Having conducted a de novo review of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and the R&R, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R (Doc. No. 20), DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 14), and GRANTS Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 15).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
IRMA E. GONZALEZ
United States District Judge