(SS) Wofford v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 WAYNE WOFFORD, No. 2:19-CV-0792 WBS DMC 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, 20 brings this action for judicial review of a final decision of the 21 Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The 22 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 23 to Eastern District of California local rules. 24 On February 26, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed 25 findings and recommendations herein which were served on the 26 parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 27 objections within the time specified therein. Timely objections 28 to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this court has conducted a de 3 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 4 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 5 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Specifically, the court finds that the Commissioner’s 7 decision was based on properly legal standards and supported by 8 substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Tacket v. 9 Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). In doing so, the 10 court agrees with the magistrate judge’s findings, among others, 11 that (1) the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) properly determined 12 plaintiff’s residual capacity functioning in connection with his 13 visual impairment; (2) plaintiff’s ability to work for many years 14 was a proper factor to consider in assessing disability, given 15 the ALJ’s recognition of plaintiff’s lifetime of visual 16 impairments since age two; (3) plaintiff’s Global Assessment of 17 Functioning (“GAF”) score in February 2016 did not indicate 18 worsening mental impairments, given the limitation of this 19 assessment and the improvements he showed with counseling; (4) 20 the ALJ did in fact account for Dr. Izzi’s opinion that plaintiff 21 was moderately limited in his ability to be supervised; and (5) 22 the ALJ properly discounted the testimony of plaintiff and his 23 mother regarding the severity of his symptoms in light of the 24 objective medical evidence and his daily activities. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 27 26, 2021, are adopted in full; 28 2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Docket ee I EIR ISIE III ES ED 1 | No. 17) is denied; 2 3. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment 3 (Docket No. 18) is granted; 4 4, The Commissioner’s final decision is affirmed; and 5 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter 6 | judgment and close this file. 7 | Dated: April 15, 2021 dette ah (LA. WILLIAMB. SHUBB tS 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28