Opinion
CASE NO. 15cv55-WQH-MDD
02-25-2016
JANET KAREN WORSHAM, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER :
The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin, recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) be denied and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) be granted.
I. Background
On October 5, 2010, Plaintiff protectively filed for supplemental security disability insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning May 1, 2006. Plaintiff's claim was denied at the initial level and upon reconsideration. Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), which was held on February 21, 2013. On May 31, 2013, the ALJ issued a written decision finding Plaintiff not disabled. The Appeals Council for the Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's request for further review.
On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, commenced this action seeking judicial review of Defendant's decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 1). On May 6, 2015, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 11). On June 5, 2015, the Commissioner cross-moved for summary judgment and responded in opposition to Plaintiff's motion. (ECF Nos. 12). Plaintiff did not file a Reply to Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment
On January 12, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 15). The Report and Recommendation recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ "offered several clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff's allegations as not credible." Id. at 13. The Report and Recommendation states that any objections to the Report and Recommendation must be filed no later than January 26, 2016, and "[t]he parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Court's order." Id. at 13-14 (citation omitted).
The docket reflects that no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.
II. Review of the Report and Recommendation
The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
After review of the Report and Recommendation, the written opinion of the ALJ, the administrative record, and the submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ applied the correct legal standards.
III. Conclusion
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) is adopted in its entirety; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) is denied; and (3) Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is granted. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff. DATED: February 25, 2016
/s/_________
WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge